ORDER :— Appellant Ramakant Misra joined service in the Kanpur Electric Supply Administration ("Administration" for short) which was then a Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. On the constitution of U. P. Electricity Board ("Board" for short), under the provisions of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 ("Act" for short), with effect from April 1, 1958, the Kanpur Electric Supply Administration stood transferred to the Board and the employees working in the Administration were deemed to be on deputation to the Board though they would continue to be Government servants as provided in a Circular dated March 13, 1959. As per Notification No. 3721E/74-23P(3)155E/7 dated Aug. 3, 1974 the posts held formerly in the Administration by the employees working in the Administration were abolished and the deputationists were absorbed in the service of the Board. However, before the appellant could be so absorbed he Was served with a charge sheet on Nov. 19, 1971, alleging that he was guilty of disorderly behaviour punishable under the relevant Standing Orders. Simultaneously the appellant was suspended from service pending a departmental inquiry. The inquiry officer who was appointed to hold the inquiry after holding the inquiry recorded his finding that the charge was proved. It would be advantageous to reproduce the charge. it is extracted from the report of the inquiry officer :

"Shri Rama Kant was charged for misconduct under Clauses 20 (9), 18 and 28 of the Standing Orders for disorderly behaviour or conduct likely to cause a breach of peace threatening an employee within the Premises and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline".

2. The specific allegation is that on Nov. 18, 1971, around 2.50 p. m. appellant was complaining about the deduction that was being made from his wages for the absence from the place of work and late attendance with Shri Mahendra Singh. When Shri Mahendra Singh replied that he has no separate rules for him, the appellant is alleged to have lost his balance. The threatening language alleged to have been used by the appellant when freely translated reads :

"Are other persons your father. I will make you forget your high-handedness either here or somewhere else. An officer of yesterdays making discloses power consciousness".

The inquiry officer held that the words attributed to the appellant were used by him in reference to Shri Mahendra Singh and that use of such language would constitute misconduct within the relevant clauses of the Standing Orders hereinbefore mentioned. The inquiry officer recommended dismissal from service. As the matter was being dealt with on the footing that the appellant was a Government servant entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution, a second, show cause notice according to the provisions then contained in Article 311 was required to be served before penalty was finally imposed upon him. But even before the notice was served the appellant was dismissed from service on April 6, 1972.

3. A dispute having been raised questioning the validity of termination of service of the appellant, the 1st respondent made a reference to the Labour Court, U. P. for adjudication of the dispute. The Labour Court by its Award dated March 21, 1978, held that the termination of service of the appellant was legal and proper. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to the High Court failed. Hence this appeal by special leave.

4. Mr. Markandeya, learned counsel who appeared for the respondent urged that any person who claims to be a Government employee cannot seek relief both under Article 311 on the footing that he is holding a civil post or is a member of the civil service of the State on the one hand and a workman falling under the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the other, and that this aspect is being examined by a larger Bench. In this case it is not necessary to resolve the controversy because we requested Mr. Markandeya to state specifically wheth