Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : (On behalf of K. N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah and N. Rajagopal Ayyangar JJ. and himself) These two groups of appeals have been placed before us for hearing together, because they raise, a common question of law in regard to the Constitutional validity of Rules 148(3) and 149(3) contained in the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I. (hereafter called the Code). The first group consists of four appeals. C. A. No. 711 and 712 of 1962 arise from two petitions filed by the appellants Moti Ram Deka and Sudhir Kumar Deka respectively in the Assam High Court. Deka was a Peon employed by the North East Frontier Railway, whereas Das was a confirmed Clerk. They alleged that purporting to exercise its power under R. 148 of the Code, the respondent, the General Manager North East Frontier Railway, terminated their services and according to them, the said termination was illegal inasmuch as the Rule under which the impugned orders of termination had been passed, was invalid. This plea has been rejected by the Assam High Court and the writ petitions filed by the two appellants have been dismissed. It is against these orders of dismissal that they have come to this Court by special leave.

2. Civil Appeal No. 713 of 1962 arises out of a petition filed by the appellant Priya Gupta who was an Assistant Electrical Foreman employed by the North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. His services having been terminated by the respondent General Manager of the said Railway, he moved the Allahabad High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and challenged the validity of the order terminating his services on the ground that R. 148 of the Code was invalid. The appellant s plea has been rejected by the said High Court both by the learned single Judge who heard his petition in the first instance and by the Division Bench which heard his Letters Patent appeal. That is how the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.

3. Civil Appeal No. 714 of 1962 arises out of a writ petition filed by Tirath Ram Lakhanpal who was a Class A Guard employed by the Northern Railway, New Delhi. His services were terminated by the Respondent General Manager of the said Railway under R. 148 of the Code and his writ petition to quash the said order has been dismissed by the Punjab High Court. The learned single Judge who heard this writ petition rejected the pleas raised by the appellant and the Division Bench which the appellant moved by way of Letters Patent appeal summarily dismissed his appeal. It is this dismissal of his Letters Patent appeal which has brought the appellant to this Court by Special Leave. That is how this group of four appeals raises a common question about the validity of R. 148.

4. The next group consists of three appeals which challenge the decision of the Assam High Court holding that the orders of dismissal passed by appellant No. 2, the General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, against the three respective respondents S. B. Tewari, Parimal Gupta and Pream Chand Thakur, under R. 149 of the Code, were invalid. These three respondents had moved the Assam High Court for quashing the impugned orders terminating their services, and the writ petitions having been heard by a Special Bench of the said High Court consisting of three learned Judges, the majority opinion was that the impugned orders were orders of dismissal and as such, were outside the purview of R. 149. According to this view, though R. 149 may not be invalid, the impugned orders were bad because as orders of dismissal they were not justified by R. 149. The minority view was that R. 149 itself is invalid, and so, the impugned orders were automatically invalid. In the result, the three writ petitions filed by these respondents respectively were allowed. That is why the Union of India and the General Manager, N. E. F. Railway, appellants 1 and 2 respectively, have come to this Court with a certificate granted by the Assam High Court, any they challenge the corr