Mootham, C.J. - (1.) This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Oak dated 28-11-1957 dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The facts relevant for purposes of this appeal are these. On 25-9-1938, the appellant entered into the service of the Rohilkhand and Kumaun Railway as goods clerk and in February 1940 he was confirmed in his appointment. In 1942| the Government of India decided to take over the management of the Rohilkhand-Kumaun Railway (and also that of the B.N.W. Railway) with effect from 1-1-1943, and in October 1942 it made an offer of employment to the non-gazetted staff (which included the appellant) of the two railways. The appellant accepted the offer, and on and from 1-1-1943, he accordingly became an employee of the Central Government.
(2.) In the beginning of 1952 the appellant wag posted as goods,clerk at Izatnagar, and on the 25th of January of that year he was served with a charge sheet alleging misconduct, inefficiency and neglect of duty. On 30-1-1952, the appellant submitted his reply to the charge sheet, and it appears that the railway administration was satisfied with that explanation as no further action was taken against the appellant. In April 1956 the appellant was transferred to Gorakhpur and on 8-5-1956, he received a communication from the General Manager dated 24/26-4-1956, terminating his services. This communication was in the following terms : "Please take notice that the General Manager, N. E. Railway, Gorakhpur, in exercise of the special powers vested in him has ordered termination of your service in terms of the condition of your service, with immediate effect, with one month's pay in lieu of notice." Against this order the appellant appealed without success to the Railway Board. Thereafter the appellant sent a number of applications to the General Manager for the reconsideration of his case and on 28-1-1957, he received a second communication from the General Manager informing him that "it is regretted that your services are not required by this administration". The appellant then filed a petition in this Court in which the principal relief sought was the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the 'orders' of the General Manager dated respectively 24/26- 4-1956, and 28-1-1957. That petition was dismissed and the appellant now appeals. The appeal has been very well argued before us, but notwithstanding the numerous authorities which have been cited we do not think that it raises questions of any great difficulty.
(3.) The basic argument of Mr. S. N. Kacker for the appellant is that the appellant was a permanent servant of the railway administration in the sense that he was, subject to his good behaviour, entitled to remain in service until the age of 55, and that in such circumstances the termination of his service before he had attained that age necessarily amounted to dismissal or removal and attracted the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. Mr. Lakshman Swa-rup for the respondent administration contends that although the appellant comes within the category of railway employees known as permanent non-gazetted staff, his employment with the railway administration is subject to the provisions of the Railway Establishment Code, and that his services have been lawfully terminated in accordance with the provisions of that Code. The first matter to be decided is, therefore, the terms of the appellant's employment. His learned counsel concedes that the appellant's right to continue in service until he attains the age of 55 is a right which could have been circumscribed by agreement between the appellant and the railway administration, or by a rule which is binding on the appellant. He contends, however, that the appellant entered into no formal agreement with the railway administration and that he is not subject to the rules to he found in the Railway Establishment Code.;