The existence of an adequate alternative remedy is a factor to be considered in determining whether to grant a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THIS rule was issued on 18-5-1951, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why the order complained of in the petition should not be revoked or cancelled or why a writ in the nature of Mandamus or in the nature of Prohibition should not issue to the opposite parties prohibiting them or directing them to forbear from giving effect to the said orders complained of or why such other appropriate order or orders under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be made as to this court may seem fit and proper.

( 2 ) THE orders complained of are dated 18-11-1950 and 13-11-1950. By the order dated 18-11-1950, the petitioner was informed by a communication received from the District Transportation Officer that the petitioner has been removed from his service. By the order dated the 13th of December 1950, passed by the District Transportation Officer the petitioner was informed that the matter of his removal has been finally heard and that the appeal preferred by the petitioner could not be forwarded.

( 3 ) THE opposite parties to this rule are the General Manager, Bengal Nagpur Railway, the District Transportation Officer, Bengal Nagpur Railway, and the Deputy Transportation Manager, Bengal Nagpur Railway.

( 4 ) THE facts alleged in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Guard which is a non-gazetted post, on the 14th of October 1943. That on 1-10-1944, the Bengal Nagpur Railway Administration was taken over by the State. On 1-1-1949, the petitioner was confirmed in his appointment. On 31-1-1950, certain incidents took place at Cuttack, that on the report submitted by Mr. N. C. Zerath, Assistant Corruption Officer, of the Bengal Nagpur Railway, the petitioner was served on 29-8-1950, with a charge sheet requiring him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner's allegation is that on the 3rd of September, 1950, the petitioner showed cause. That the petitioner was later suspended from service on the 11th of October 1950. On the 14th of October, 1950, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Assistant Transportation officer demanding an enquiry as provided for by the rules. On 12-11-1950, the petitioner sent a reminder to the Transportation Officer for a departmental enquiry. On 18-11-1950, as I have already stated, the petitioner received a communication from the District Transportation Officer that his services were dispensed with, that the communication contained a statement to the effect that the petitioner was entitled to appeal to the Transportation Manager within one month, that on the 29th of November 1950, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Transportation Manager, that on the 16-12-1950, the petitioner received a communication that his memorandum of appeal could not be forwarded, that on the 15-1-1951, the petitioner wrote a letter to the General Manager for reconsideration of the order passed on him. On 12-4-1951, the petitioner received a communication from the Transportation Manager that there was no ground for reconsideration of the order made removing him from service. The petitioner thereupon moved this court and obtained the rule, as stated above, on 18-5-1951.

( 5 ) MR. Banerjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the order of removal passed in this case was illegal under Article 311 (1) of the Constitution inasmuch as the petitioner was removed from service by an officer subordinate to the officer who appointed him.

( 6 ) MR. Banerjee has also contended that the petitioner had no reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his removal, that, at any rate, the petitioner was not afforded a further opportunity against the action proposed by the Railway Administration after the order was served on him. It was, accordingly, contended that the order of removal was void under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Reference was made to the case of 'high COMMISSIONERS FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN v. I. M. LALL', 75 Ind App 225 (PC), i