The President of the Tribunal, in exercising disciplinary jurisdiction, did not constitute a Court or a tribunal but acted in exercise of his administrative duty and therefore the law of master and servant applied.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside an order dt. March 10, 1965, passed by the opposite party President Calcutta Improvement Tribunal, dismissing the petitioner and imposing a penalty by way of deducting a portion of the contributory provident fund.

( 2 ) THE petitioner Haripada Moitra joined the Improvement Trust Tribunal as accountant in 1935 and was promoted as Chief Ministerial Officer in 1938, the designation of which part was changed to Superintendent of the Improvement Tribunal. His retirement was due on March 15, 1959 on attainment of the age of 55 but he was granted extension of service for one year at a time for six such terms, the last of which expired on March 15, 1965.

( 3 ) IN 1936, the then President of the Tribunal directed the petitioner to look after the records of the tribunal in addition and to stay in a portion of the office premises of the tribunal as a Court keeper, though such stay was not a condition of the employment relating to this additional work. In 1941, Government sanctioned a special allowance of Rs. 30 for this additional job which however, did not entail any responsibility for furniture of the tribunal, as he was placed merely in overall supervision of the furniture. In August 1, 1964, he relinquished the charge of this additional work, under pressure from the opposite party, president of the tribunal.

( 4 ) THE opposite party assumed charge as President and started with bias against him, as he pointed out several illegal and irregular acts done by him in connection with appointment and discharge of officer of the tribunal. Trouble then started over the opposite party's demand on petitioner to vacate a portion of accommodation which the petitioner was holding adjacent to the quarter of the court keeper -- which the petitioner refused.

( 5 ) PETITIONER went on leave in August 1964 and after a short break again went on medical leave due to expire on December 6, 1964.

( 6 ) BY an order dated December 5, 1964, the Opposite party placed the petitioner under suspension with effect from December 5, 1964 and his application for extension of leave was rejected. On December 28, 1964, the petitioner was served with charge-sheet and two proceedings were started against him.

( 7 ) THE charges related to furniture, his failure to stay in the quarters during his term as Court Keeper, for which he drew allowance, for not immediately making over possession to the entire premises in his occupation as Court Keeper to his successor and for breach of office discipline and misappropriation of office articles.

( 8 ) THE petitioner was thereafter directed to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service, make good the property, refund the allowances, and also, why deduction shall not be made from his provident fund under Rules of the tribunal.

( 9 ) THE petitioner who was ill and on medical leave, denied all the charges and prayed for copies of documents, specified in the list annexed to the letter and for time to submit explanations.

( 10 ) THE petition was rejected and the petitioner was informed that the copies of the documents could not be furnished 'at that stage'. His subsequent prayer for transferring the proceeding to some other authority, as the opposite party was himself a material witness, was also rejected.

( 11 ) VARIOUS correspondence thereafter followed but the petitioner's requests were not complied with and the proceedings continued ex parte, and the petitioner was not allowed to be represented by a lawyer.

( 12 ) BY an order dated February 24, 1965, the opposite party found the charges proved and passed an order directing refund of Rs. 3,500 drawn by petitioner over a period of 10 years for failure to stay in the quarters, for compensation for the loss of furniture, and dismissing him from service.

( 13 ) THE petitioner was served with a copy of the order and directed to show cause why he should not be dismissed from ser