JUDGMENT - In November 1926, the plaintiff was employed as an apprentice by the G. I.P. Railway on the terms and conditions contained in an agreement dated November 22nd, 1926. In April 1930, the plaintiff was promoted to the post of "A" Grade fitter. In April 1931 his services were retrenched, but he was again employed as from September 25th, 1931. The Plaintiff was promoted to the office of a Chargeman in 1940 and continued to hold that post till the impugned order of termination of his services.

By an order dated July 1st 1941 made by the Government of Bombay under the provisions of the Defence of India Rules, the plaintiff was detained. The plaintiff was however released from detention of July 25th, 1942. As from the date of his release the plaintiff continued to serve the Railway as Chargeman and was paid all his salaries for the period during which he was detained. By an order made by the Commissioner of Police Bombay on April 2nd, 1948 under the provisions of the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, the plaintiff was once again detained. That order of detention was challenged in this Court and before the hearing of the petition the order of detention was cancelled on March 17, 1949.

By an order of externment passed under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, on March 17, 1949, the plaintiff was externed out of the Province of Bombay. That order was challenged in Petition No. 811 of 1950 and was cancelled on September 1st, 1950. The Plaintiff reported to the Workman for attending on duty on September 1st, 1950. He was however informed that he should treat himself as under suspension and was not allowed to join duty. The plaintiff protested against his action by Petition No. 82 of 1951 filed in this Court challenging his alleged suspension and demanded the cancellation of his suspension. The Defendants by their order dated June 22nd 1951 cancelled the suspension of the plaintiff from service.

The plaintiff was, however on June 22nd, 1951 served with a notice under the Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "Security Rules") informing the plaintiff that his services were liable to be terminated under Rule 3 of the Security Rules and requiring the plaintiff to go on leave admissible and also to submit his representation for showing as to why his services should not be terminated. The plaintiff was under the provision of the Rules forced to go on leave admissible and was not allowed to join duty after June 22nd, 1951. The Plaintiff protested against leave forced ..... him and made his representation showing cause against the action proposed to be taken. In the end of July 1951, the plaintiff was given a hearing before the "Committee of Advisers". The Plaintiff was again served with the second show cause noticed dated January 23rd, 1953. The Plaintiff was thereby informed that it was provisionally decided that his services should be terminated after giving one months pay in lieu of notice. The Plaintiff was called upon to show cause why such action should not be taken. The Plaintiff made his second representation against the action proposed to be taken and was ultimately on August 15, 1953 served wit the impugned order of termination of services dated August 12th, 1953. The plaintiff served a notice dated January 27, 1954 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and ultimately filed this suit on March 31st, 1954, challenging the validity of his suspension from service between 2-4-1948 and 22-6-1951 and the validity of the order dated 12-8-1953 purporting to terminate his services. The plaintiff has also claimed a declaration that he continues in service and arrears at salary on that footing.

(1) After I had delivered judgment in this case (on June 24th and 25th, 1959) in the case of Balkrishna Bapuji Karkhanis v. State of Bombay, Suit No. 276 of 1954, Mr. R. L. Dalal on behalf of the State contended that by reason of the provisions of Article 310 of the Constitution,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document