The termination of service of an employee in accordance with the terms of his service agreement is not subject to the protection of Sub-section (2) of Section 240, Government of India Act, 1935, or the regulations regarding disciplinary action against non-gazetted staff.

Das, J.

1. This is an application for the issue of a writ, praying that the order of removal passed against the petitioner, with effect from the afternoon of 31-7-1948, be quashed and that the petitioner be reinstated to the post which he held before his removal from service.

2. The relevant facts as alleged by the petitioner are the following. The petitioner, Sri Bhagwan Das, worked as a clerk under the then East Indian Railway Company from 13-8-1923, to 31-12-1924. The East Indian Railway Company was taken over by the Government of India sometime in 1925, and by an agreement dated 29-10-1925, the petitioner accepted the offer of the Railway Board to serve the Government of India as a clerk from 1-1-1925. In pursuance of the said agreement, the petitioner continued in State Railway Service and worked as Head Bill Clerk in the Engineering Accounts Department in the office of the Divisional Superintendent, Dinapur. It was alleged by the Railway Department concerned that the petitioner was absent from duty without sufficient cause on 19-11-1947, and again on the 25-12-1947. Two charges were framed against the petitioner and he was asked to explain. It is stated that the petitioner submitted an explanation with regard to his absence on 19-11-1947. On behalf of the Railway Department it is alleged that the petitioner submitted no explanation with regard to his absence on 25-12-1947; on the contrary, the petitioner continued to remain absent from duty. Then, on 12-6-1948, the petitioner was served with the following removal notice:

"East Indian Railway Dated 9/12-6-1948 Removal Notice No. EC/48. To Babu Bhagwan Dass, Clerk, Optg: Accounts, Dinapore, C/ Hd Clerk, Optg. Accounts, 1 Dinapore. He will please make over charge of all Railway property and report to this office.

As your services are no longer required by the Administration you are hereby removed from service by my orders in terms of your agreement and conditions of service, and you are hereby given one months notice with effect from 1-7-48 as provided for therein. Your services will accordingly terminate on the afternoon of 31-7-48.

You are to hand over to Head Clerk, Optg. Accounts Dinapore, all Railway property, if any, which is in your possession and let me know when and how you wish to be settled up and receive payment of your dues.

You are, on expiry of your notice, to vacate railway quarters, if any, at once; otherwise you are liable to pay rent at the rates applicable to outsiders.

You are to acknowledge this. Station Dinapore Sd. B. S. D. B. Dated 9/12-6-1949

Designation, Senior Superintendent, Way and Works, Dinapore."

3. The petitioner admittedly received the notice, and on 30-7-1948, he sent a reply to the Divisional Superintendent Dinapur, in which the petitioner stated as follows:

"With reference to your above (referring to the notice dated 12-6-1948), I beg to inform you that I am not in a position to go to office as asked for in your above notice. Moreover, I have already made over all papers etc. which were in my custody as Head Bill Clerk to my successor Babu S. P. Choudhury on 25-12-47.

Under the circumstances will you please arrange to pay all my dues, i.e. Provident Fund etc. as soon as possible."

Except writing the aforesaid letter, the petitioner does not appear to have done anything else till 19-6-1950, when he addressed another letter to the Divisional Superintendent Dinapur, which letter is marked Annexure E to the substantive application of the petitioner. In this letter the petitioner alleged that he was discharged by the Divisional Superintendent Dinapur, who had no-authority to discharge him, inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed by the General Manager, who was the only competent authority to discharge or remove the petitioner from service.

In paragraph 4 of the letter the petitioner stated that he would hold the Divisional Superintendent, Dinapur responsible for the mental and physical pain caused to the petitioner by the order of r