Ramaswami, J.

1. In these applications, which we have heard together, an identical question of law arises, namely, whether the order, terminating the service of the petitioner in each case, violates the provisions of Articles 311(2) and 320(3) of the Constitution of India, and therefore illegal and without jurisdiction.

2. In M. J. C. No. 98 of 1952 the petitioner is Ajit Kumar Mukherji, who was employed as a clerk in the office of the Divisional Superintendent of Transportation at Dhanbad, since July, 1942. On 12-7-1950 the petitioner received a letter No. PC 142 BI (11) which reads as follows:-

-

"Whereas in the opinion of the Competent Authority as defined in Rule 2, Railway Service (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949 who in your case is the Chief Operating Supdt. EIR. Calcutta), you are reasonably suspected to be a member of the Communist party of India and associated with other subversive activities in such a manner as to raise doubts about your reliability, you took very active part in connection with the threatened Railway Strike of March, 1949, organised by the E. I. Railroad workers Union controlled by the Communist party of India whose avowed object is