B.N.BANERJEE, J. - (1.) WHILE transportation was a West Bengal Government concern, the petitioner was appointed as a driver, by the Director of Administration, in the Directorate of Transportation, in November 1952 on a monthly salary of Rs. 90 plus usual dearness and house -rent allowances. The appointment was subject to the following conditions: (a) He shall be on probation for six months and unless he is appointed substantively on the expiry of his probationary period, his service will terminate without any further notice. (b) The post is purely temporary and is terminable at any time without any notice. In March 1953, the said Director of Administration promoted the petitioner to the position of a driver -mechanic with effect from March 1953, by office order No. 1918 (3), dated 26 March 1953, and attached him to the Lake Depot of the directorate. While working as such, the petitioner was suspended from office on 3 May 1958, by respondent 2, officer -in -charge, Lake Depot, and was put on a subsistence allowance. The petitioner was not informed of the reasons for suspension until 8 October 1958, when he was called upon to show cause why he should not be removed from service or otherwise punished for misappropriation of twelve items of tool entrusted to his care. The petitioner showed cause denying the charge. There was a departmental enquiry started against the petitioner in which the petitioner participated. As a result of the enquiry the following order was passed against the petitioner, on 5 March 1959: His explanation referred to above has been duly considered and after careful consideration of the same the undersigned has come to the conclusion that the charge framed against him has been established in part. So he is hereby warned to be more careful in future and allowed to resume duty forthwith. The period of his suspension will be treated as on leave on such pay as is admissible under the rules. The petitioner says that he moved against the order, under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a rule, which is said to be pending. With that, however, I am not at present concerned.
(2.) AFTER the petitioner had obtained the rule from this Court, respondent 2, officer -in -incharge Lake Depot, terminated the service of the petitioner by a letter, dated 29 December 1959, in the language hereinafter set out: Your temporary service in this directorate will not be required with effect from 1 February 1960. You are directed to take one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice. You are further directed to deposit all the articles issued to you by this directorate within seven days of receipt of this order failing which appropriate legal action will be taken against you to realize the same. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from giving effect to the order dated 29 December 1969, for a writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid order and for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from giving further effect to the order and obtained this rule on 16 March 1960.
(3.) SINCE after the issue of this rule the State Transport Corporation, established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1960, took over State transportation with effect from 15 June 1960 and the petitioner brought the Calcutta State Transport Corporation on the record.;