An order of dismissal is not effective until it is communicated to the employee.

( 1 ) THE facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of the Municipal Market, College Street Branch under the Corporation of Calcutta, in the year 1938 In March 1945, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Conservancy Supervisor. In 1948, the Corporation was temporarily superseded and an Administrative Officer was appointed. On the 23th April 1952. an order was passed by the Administrative Officer dismissing the petitioner from service. The 1951 Act came into force on the 1st May 1912, and the supersession came to an end. The order of dismissal was served on the petitioner On the 3rd of May 1952. It appears that the Corporation became dissatisfied with various orders of appointment and discharge made by the Administrative Officer, and a Sub-Committee of 13 members was appointed under Section 98 (1) of the Act, to examine and scrutinise such cases. The case of the petitioner amongst others was considered by the Special Committee. On the 13th of June 1952, the Sub-Committee recommended that the order of dismissal of the petitioner should be set aside. Sometime in June 1952, a resolution was passed by the Corporation accepting the recommendation of the Special Committee and reinstating the petitioner. It appears that thereafter doubts were felt as to whether the order of reinstatement was valid and sometime in June 1954, the Commissioner to the Corporation passed an order of suspension upon the petitioner, pending a decision on that point. On the 10th September 1954, an order was published by the State Government through the Local Self Government Department, a copy whereof is set out in paragraph 14 of the petition. By this order that part of the resolution of the Corporation which reinstated the petitioner was annulled, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 47 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. It is against this order that this Rule is directed. The snort point that arises here is as follows: According to Government, the resolution of the Corporation reinstating the petitioner is invalid because the petitioner having been dismissed by the Administrative Officer, could not, in the opinion of the Government, be reinstated by the Corporation. What the Corporation could do was to make an order of fresh appointment. Treating the order of reinstatement as a fresh appointment, the Govt. considered that the provisions of Section 81 (2) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 had not been observed. Under that provision, appointment to posts carrying a maximum salary not below Rs. 250a but below Rs. 1500/- should be made on the recommendation of the Municipal Service Commission. There is no doubt that in this case the Municipal Service Commission was not consulted. The point therefore that has to be decided is very short. If the petitioner was validly dismissed on the 26th April 1952, then indeed the Corporation would have no jurisdiction to reinstate him. What it could do was to reappoint him. Equally, there is no doubt that reappointment would require observance of the procedure laid down in Section 81 (2) of the Act, namely consultation with the Municipal Service Commission. In order to meet this point, Mr. Roy on behalf of the petitioner has advanced the following argument: He says that it is true that on the 26th April 1952. an order was made by the Administrative Officer. It was however not communicated to the petitioner until the 3rd of May 1952. He says that an order could only be said to have been completed when it was communicated, and consequently the dismissal must be taken to have taken place on the 3rd of May 1952. So far as the facts are concerned, the parties are agreed that the order was made on the 26th April 1952, a letter was issued on the 30th of April 1952, but no attempt to serve it was made before the 3rd of May 1952. It appears that the petitioner was on leave for a few days and it was only upon his return on the 3rd of May 1952 that this