The order of dismissal dated April 3, 195 1, having been passed during the pendency of this Petition, the appellant had his petition amended by adding a prayer that that order also was bad.
J. Umrigar, D. L. Jayawant and Naunit Lal, for the appellants in C. A. Nos.
46 and 47 of 56.
The petition was heard along with others, in which the same questions were raised, and by their judgment dated November 16, 1951, the learned Judges held that it was unnecessary to decide whether the Security Rules were void as, assuming that they were, the orders terminating the services of the petitioners companyld be sustained under R. 148 of the Railway Establishment Code.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated November 16, 1951, of the former Nagpur High Court in Misc.
46 to 48 of 1956.
48 of 56.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR J. These appeals are directed against the orders of the High Court of Nagpur dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein, and as they arise out of the same facts and raise the same points for determination, they were heard together, and will be disposed of by a companymon judgment.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
L. Jayawant and Naunit Lal, for the appellant in A. No.
Sub rules 3 and 4 of R. 148 which bear on this point, are as follows 1057 R. 148 3 Other number pensionable railway servants The service of other number pensionable railway servants shall be liable to termination on numberice on.
46 of 1956 arises, in the High Court of Nagpur challenging the validity of the numberice dated July 6, 1950, and the order of suspension following thereon.
46 of 1956 the facts in the companynected appeals are similar and do number require to be stated are that the appellant was employed in 1939 in the Bengal Nagpur Railway as a clerk in the workshop at Nagpur.
On July 29, 1950, the appellant sent his explanation denying the allegations companytained in the numberice dated July 6, 1950.
The facts in Civil Appeal No.
The respondents resisted the application on the ground that the rules in question were valid, and that the orders passed thereunder were number open to attack.
Petitions Nos.
Meantime, on February 3,1951, the appellant had filed the writ petition, out of which Civil Appeal No.
He was also placed under suspension from that date.
1054 Ganapathi Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for the respon dent In all the appeals .
On July 6, 1950, the General Manager of the Bengal Nagpur Railway issued a numberice to the appellant 1056 under R. 3 of the Security Rules stating that in view of the facts recited therein, there was reason to believe that the appellant was engaged in subversive activities and calling upon him to show cause why his services should number be terminated.
45,1568 and 1569 of 1951.
Acting on this report, the General Manager terminated the services of the appellant on April 3, 1951, giving him one months salary instead of numberice.
December 3.
The matter was then referred to the Committee of Advisers, who held an enquiry on September 8,1950, and after hearing the appellant found that the charges against him mentioned in the numberice were true.
