( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the order of the Executive Engineer terminating his service as a Clerk was null and void and that he continued in the service of the Government. The facts giving rise to this litigation may be briefly stated as follows. The plaintiff was appointed as a temporary clerk on the Work Charged Establishment on 24th November 1948. The plaintiff was thereafter by an order of the Executive Engineer bearing No. A/3968 of 1950 and dated 18th March 1949 promoted as a Clerk on officiating permanent establishment and was retained in the same subdivision in which he was working. On 12th May 1952 the plaintiff was called upon to give explanation in connection with certain charges made against him and he submitted his explanation on 10th June 1952. This explanation was according to the plaintiff accepted by the authorities and the chapter was closed. The plaintiff was thereafter transferred from Unchha beat to Limbla beat on 26th July 1952. On 29th October 1952 the Deputy Engineer sent a confidential letter to the plaintiff calling upon him to explain certain allegations against him. These allegations were (1) that he gave water to 200 acres of land without any application from the cultivators and caused waste and loss to the Government and (2) that he did not send discharge and gauge measures to the Executive Engineer by accurately measuring them but tent them only on estimate. The plaintiff was called upon to explain these allegations within a period of seven days. The Deputy Engineer thereafter sent a report to the Executive Engineer on 20th November 1952 repeating these two allegations made against the plaintiff and stating that the explanation orally given by the plaintiff in connection with these allegations was not true. The Deputy Engineer also reported to the Executive Engineer that the plaintiff was very lazy and indifferent to his duties. On this report of the Deputy Engineer the Executive Engineer passed an order on 8th December 1952. It was stated in the order that the plaintiff was negligent in his work that ho had shown gross negligence in the discharge. of his duties and that he was responsible for unauthorized water supply to Khariff crops and that such indifference and dishonest way of working could not be tolerated and that previously also his work had been found unreliable and indifferent and that he had often absented himself from duty without permission and that he was therefore considered unsuitable for continuing any further and that his services were therefore ordered to be terminated immediately. It was also stated in the order that one months notice was not necessary in the case of the plaintiff. The order was contained in a letter addressed by the Executive Engineer to the Sub-Divisional Officer Ahmedabad and on the strength of the order the plaintiff was relieved from service by the Deputy Engineer and the plaintiff handed over charge to the Deputy Engineer on 31st December 1952. The plaintiff thereafter carried on correspondence with the Superintending engineer but with no result and the plaintiff therefore ultimately gave the statutory notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and filed the present suit on 26th April 1954 The plaintiff contended that he was dismissed from service without complying with the requirements of the Bombay Civil Services Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules as well as Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and that the dismissal was therefore invalid and inoperative and he continued in the service of the Government. The Government did not dispute that the procedure laid down by the Bombay Civil Services Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules and Article 311 (2) was not followed in the case of the plaintiff; but the contention of the Government was that the termination of the service of the plaintiff did not amount to dismissal or removal from service so as to requ