Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. The petitioner, Rangnath Misra, has moved this Court, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and, obtained a rule against the Chairman, District Board, Saharsa, who is the sole opposite party to this case, to show cause why an appropriate writ should not be issued to call up and quash his order dated 21-10-1955, which is Annexure C to the affidavit of the petitioner, dispensing with his services with effect from 22-10-1955.

2. This opposite party has shown cause against the rule through the Advocate General, and, also filed a counter affidavit.

3. The petitioner was appointed a clerk in the District Board of Bhagalpur on 19-3-1926. In July, 1948, on the Constitution of a District Board at Saharsa, the services were transferred there. He continued to serve thereafter as a clerk in the Saharsa District Board. On 30-7-1955, he received a letter from the opposite party calling upon him to explain within three days several charges mentioned therein. This letter, which is Annexure A, is to the following effect:

"As desired by the Government you are directed to explain the following charges within three days from the date of receipt of this letter positively. Charges:-

- 1. That, you drew Earthquake advance twice from the Bhagalpur District Board which tanta-mounted to double payment for which you were warned in D. Bd. letter No. 7649-50, dated 18-12-38 and 5337 dated 5-9-39 as it appears from entries in your service book.

2. That, you deposited Rs. 20.00 being the bid money of Katahi and Daparkha pounds for the year 1953-54 received by you on 19-12-52 into the District Fund, Saharsa, on 22-5-54 which tanta-mounts to temporary embezzlement.

3. That, you withdrew Rs. 1455/- from your P. F. in April, 1953, and refunded Rs. 55/- into the District Fund by chalan No. 2 dated 29-4-53 against advance outstanding against your name. You manipulated to get your P. P. credited with Rs. 55/- on the basis of the said chalan for which you were warned.

4. That, the records and papers of all D, Bd. important cases including the case Chhatradhari Singh V/s. D. Bd. were kept in your custody, but the records and papers of the case Chhatradhari Singh V/s. D. Bd. were found missing from your custody and at last you produced some of the said papers. This amounts to negligence of duty.

5. That, you are not reforming yourself even after being warned on previous occasions."

4. Immediately, on receipt of the above letter, the petitioner on 2-8-1955, requested the opposite party to supply him with copies of certain documents. He was only shown the office records which, according to the District Board authorities, formed the basis of the charges, and he could only make notes from them. The petitioner thereafter on 18-9-1955, submitted his explanation, which is Annexure 6 (c) to the counter-affidavit of the opposite party.

5. The petitioner on 19-10-1955, received a letter from the opposite party forwarding to him a copy of the resolution of the District Board dated 18-10-1955, in which it was resolved by majority that if the petitioner submitted his resignation by 21-10-1955, it should be accepted by the opposite party; otherwise, the opposite party was authorised to treat the services of the petitioner as being dispensed with and to give him order accordingly. This letter is Annexure B to the affidavit of the petitioner.

6. By this letter, Annexure B, the petitioner was informed that he should submit his resignation by 12 A. M. on 21-10-1955, or, his services will be dispensed with from 22-10-1955, No such resignation having been submitted by the petitioner, he received another communication on 21-10-1955, which is Annexure C to the petitioners application, from the opposite party informing him that as the petitioner had failed to submit his resignation till 2 p.m., on 21-10-1955, his services were thereby dispensed with from 22-10-1955, and, therefore, he must make over charge of his duties to the person, named in th