Termination of service, as distinct from dismissal or removal from service, is governed by the terms of the service agreement and relevant regulations, and does not require compliance with Article 311 of the Constitution.

Rai, J.

1. The applicant has moved this Court for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of the District Traffic Superintendent, North Eastern Railway, Sonepur, by which the services of the petitioner had been terminated and for commanding him to reinstate the petitioner on his substantive post which he had held prior to the termination of his service.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present application may shortly be stated as follows. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1931 as a signaller by the Bengal North and Western Railway. When the Bengal North and Western Railway Company was taken over by the Government of India, a notice was issued from the office of the General Manager in October 1942 whereby the petitioner was offered employment under the Government of India with effect from 1-1-1943, on terms and conditions specified on the reverse of that notice.

According to that notice, the person who was prepared to accept the offer was to execute a form of service agreement, and it was further notified that the Staff Railway Rules as applicable to persons appointed on or after 1-1-1943 would apply to persons who were prepared to accept the offer. It was further stated therein that the persons appointed on or after 1-1-1943, will be governed by the State Railway Rules in all matters. According to the petitioner, he accepted the offer and was re-appointed by the General Manager.

In July-August, 1952, the petitioner fell ill but after some time he joined his duties at Sahebpur Kamal Junction railway station. After some time he again went on one months leave. During that period of leave the petitioner again fell ill and was under the treatment of the Civil Surgeon, Muzaffarpur, and other medical practitioners.

After being cured, he resumed his duties but was sent up to the District Medical Officer, Gorakhpur, for further medical examination who declared the petitioner medically unfit for service in class A-2 as station-master but fit in class B-2 as booking clerk. On the basis of the medical report of the District Medical Officer, the District Traffic Superintendent, Sonepur, offered the petitioner the post of a booking clerk on his present pay.

The petitioner did not accept this offer but wrote back to the District Traffic Superintendent on 29-9-1952 that some mistake had crept in the report of the District Medical Officer as he was under the impression that he had actually been declared fit for service in class A-2. In that letter the petitioner prayed for being sent up to the Central Hospital, Gorakhpur, for further medical examination and treatment.

The petitioner was thereafter examined! by the Chief Medical Officer on 6-11-1952, who was of opinion that the petitioner was unfit for service in all classes. The District Traffic Superintendent thereafter sent him a letter dated 13-11-1952, which is annexure A to his application. This letter was by way of notice of termination of the service of the petitioner from 6-11-1952, until the expiry of the period of the notice.

The petitioner thereafter attempted his re-examination on the ground that in a certificate dated 16-9-1953, granted by Dr. M.P. Sinha which had been counter-signed by Dr. T.N. Banerji of Patna, he was considered to be medically fit for light duty, but his application was ultimately turned down. It became, therefore, necessary for him to move this Court for issue of a writ as indicated above.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the order of the District Traffic Superintendent terminating his services is fit to be quashed as the said order has been passed in contravention of the requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution.

4. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in -- Union of India V/s. Someswar Banerjee, 1954 Cal 399 (AIR V41) (A) & Fakir Chandra V/s. S. Chakravarti, 1954 Cal 566 (AIR V41) (B), wherein it was held that the terminat