Section 175 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 applied to contracts of service, and a person who was not employed by a valid contract in the form required by that section had no right in relation to his alleged employment as a servant of the Government, which he could enforce in a Court of law.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 326 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ for quashing of certain departmental proceeding taken against the petitioner and the report dated 25-10-1951 and findings made therein and also for quashing of a notice to show cause dated 10-4-1952 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary action of the nature mentioned therein should not be taken against him.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he is a Bachelor of Science of the Calcutta University and had special training in metallurgy and fuel technology and in agricultural engineering. He was appointed as Preventive Officer in the Customs Department of the Government of India in 1941. In 1944 he was entrusted with the work of an Examining Officer. In 1946 he appeared at a departmental examination and stood first in order of merit. In March 1946 he was posted as Postal Export Appraiser. In 1949 he passed the Appraiser's departmental examination and continued to act sb Appraiser. In June 1949 the petitioner was offered in recognition of his past meritorious service the gazetted appointment of Superintendent of Central Excise at Delhi by the Central Board, of Revenue, but the petitioner did not accept the poet and preferred to continue in the Customs Department at Calcutta. On or about 9-5-1940 one Mr. Meyer, an Assistant Collector visited the Garden Beach jetty where the petitioner was on duty in his capacity as Appraiser, accompanied by Mr. Symes the principal Appraiser (Jetties) and found on enquiry that the petitioner had passed certain consignments without physical examination of the goods. On 11-5-1950 a complaint was made by Mr. Meyer against the petitioner to the effect that the latter was in the habit of passing goods without examining them, and also that the petitioner had been guilty of discourteous ana insubordinate behaviour. Upon receipt of that complaint the then Collector appointed one Mr. B. De, Assistant Collector, as the Enquiring Officer, in spite of objections made by the petitioner to the effect that Mr, De, who was a friend and colleague of Mr. Meyer, was not well disposed towards the petitioner It is alleged that the said Enquiring Officer made an ex parte report against the petitioner without giving him any hearing or the assistance of a lawyer and without taking any evidence whatsoever in respect of the matter. Thereafter acting on the said findings of Mr. De, the Collector passed an order on 26-7-1950 reverting the petitioner permanently to the post of Preventive Officer with effect from 27-7-1950. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal against the order of the Collector on or about 4-8-1950 to the Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi, who upon considering the appeal on or about 30-5-1951 directed the reversion to be limited to a period of two years from the date of his actual reversion. It is alleged that owing to the said proceedings taken against the petitioner since May 1950, he had not been keeping good health and as he was suffering from nervous shock and disorder he had to take leave on medical grounds from 26-7-1950 to 3-10-1950 and although he applied for further leave on medical ground, the same was not granted and so he was compelled to join office from 4-10-1950, and immediately on his resuming duties he was posted on duty for long and continuous periods without any break or recess, between 4-10-1950 and 20-12-1950. Particulars of such postings have been set out in para. 7 of the petition. On 21-12-1950 one Mr. Gill an Assistant Inspector of Customs complained of incivility against the petitioner, to the Collector of Customs an the petitioner was thereupon suspended by an order of suspension passed by the Collector with effect from 21-12-1950. On 22-12-1950 the petitioner applied for leave for one month on medical advice and left for Madhupur hut as the place did not suit him the petitioner returned from Madhupur on or about 6-1-1951. On 11-1-1951 the p