Article 311 of the Constitution does not apply to civilians employed in defence services, as they are not members of the civil service of the Union or holding a civil post under the Union.

Sinha, J.

1. THE facts in this case are shortly as follows:-

THE petitioner was an employee in the Military Engineering Service known as M, E. S. In 1940 he joined service as a qualified overseer and subsequently rose to the position of Superintendent of the first grade. It appears that he was appointed by the G. E. Ishapore and subsequently on 21-8-1941 Articles of Agreement were drawn up signed both way the G. E. Ishapore as also by the petitioner. THE Articles of Agreement recited the prior appointment and then proceeded to enumerate the terms and conditions of service. It is in a form known as Form "IAPZ 2055". It is headed as

"Form of agreement to be executed by permanent and temporary clerks, etc. applicable to accountants, clerks, cashiers, copyists, agents, storekeepers and all other civilian employees and to be pasted in the service books upon execution."

THE Articles of Agreement contained the following clause:

"5. If the Government or the appointing officer shall at any time become desirous of dispensing with the services of the employee, the Government or the appointing officer shall subject to Clause 6 of this agreement give the employee one calendar month's notice in writing of such desire and in default of such notice the employee shall be entitled to receive one month's pay or salary then receiveable by the employee."

2. BY a subsequent amendment made in August 1947 the period of one month was increased to three calendar months. The Articles further provided that in case of gross misconduct the services of the employee could be terminated at any time, without notice.

Between 1949 and 1952, a succession of departmental proceedings were taken against the petitioner. On or about 16-6-1949 he was charged with the offence of having thrown away certain military stores. On 22-12-1949 the petitioner applied for ten days' leave in order to go to Eastern Pakistan where he had a home, but he overstayed his leave and did not rejoin till 1-3-1950. A proceeding was started against him on the basis that he had been absent without leave and it was further alleged that he had given a false leave address. On 28-12-1949 apparently when he was in Pakistan, an order had been made for his transfer to the operational area in Kashmir, and communicated to the leave address left by him. As he was not actually at the said address at the time, the information naturally did not reach him. Later on, when he became aware of the order, he made a representation of his inability to proceed to Kashmir. A proceeding was started against him for disobedience of order of transfer, which resulted in his reduction in rank to the position of Superintendent of the second grade. On 4-4-1951 another proceeding was instituted against him on the allegation that he had been guilty of incorrect measurement regarding technical examination of certain bills which had involved the Government in financial loss. That proceeding resulted in the petitioner being reprimanded. Yet another proceeding was started on 17-10-1951 on the allegation that the petitioner had made wrong entries regarding sizes and lengths of certain wooden beams which were to be sawed by a contractor. The petitioner showed cause. On 10-4-1952 the respondent 1 as the G. E. Calcutta Division passed the following order :--

"The competent authority has decided that you are guilty of the charge referred to above and according to the orders conveyed thereon, you are hereby served with three months' notice of discharge in terms of the service agreement executed by you on IAFZ 2055 ..... The notice will take effect from 10-4-52 A. M. and the period of three months' notice wild expire on 10-7-52 A. M. and you will be S. O. S. of M. E. $. w.e.f. the same date viz., 10-7-52 A. M."

3. ON 28-2-1952, the petitioner was charged with neglect of duty by failing to account for stores received and disposing of stores for which he was not competent ON 5-3-1952 he filed his representation against it. ON 25-4-1952