( 1 ) THE petitioner joined the Western Railway service on 17/08/1972 as a Khalasi and served at Viramgam upto 3/06/1979 when his service was terminated by the impugned order Annexure H dated 1/06/1978 That order recites that his services shall stand terminated with effect from 3/06/1978 (A. N.) on account of misconduct namely (i) fraudulent use or duly nass No. B. 585078 (ii) impersontion as Dhansukhlal and (iii) misrepresentation aloe to CCS-CCG. It was Clarified by the said order that he was not eligible to notice pay and or requirement compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 It is against this order that the Petitioner has preferred the present petition. The facts giving rise to his petition briefly stated are as under.

( 2 ) AFTER the petitioner joined service as Khalasi in 1979 he worked as with at Viramgam upto the beginning and June 1978 without any the in service. On 20/07/1977 he left for Bombay by the to the train I reached Bombay on the morning of 21/05/1977 While he was travelling by the suit to in the ticket checker found that he was lot holding regular ticket and was travailing on railway pass issued to one Dhansukhlal. It is the case of the petitioner that he traveled on the said pass at the instance of respondent No. 4 has respondent No. 4 had desired him to attend to his private work at Bombay. He states that on that account even though the was not a. Viramgam On 21/05/1977 he was marked present but that entry was subsequently changed to not present after the fact of his having been cause by the ticket checker because known to respondent No 4 It is his allegation that subsequently as the respondent No. 4 apprehended that he may come to trouble efforts were made to hush up the matter and certain statements were obtained from him under duress. He has further alleged that thereafter wheels began to move in the direction of removing him from service and ultimately he was served with a show cause notice on 5/04/1978 to which he sent a reply on April 1978 and without holding a regular inquiry against him he was unceremoniously removed from service by the impugned order of 1/06/1978. He therefore challenges the impugned or slier firstly on the grouse that since he should worked as a Khalasi (Casual Labour) froze 1972 to 1978 withes break be was entitled to the stalls of a temporary servant and therefore could not have been remove dismissed from service for misconduct without holding a regular inquiry against him The further states that even after this incident since he was Never on unauthorized leave there was no break in service and therefore the offer contained in the letter of 10/01/1978 Annexure C to continue Mix on daily wage of Rs. 4. 75 was clearly unacceptable to him and contrary to the rules governing his service. He further avers that even though the Chief Commercial Superintendent had by his order dated 21/11/1977 Annexure B condoned his action in travailing on the duty pass sound in the name of Dhansukhlal and another respondent No. 3 at the be host of the respondent No. 4 issued the show cause notice dated 5/04/1978 and ultimately terminated his service by the impugned order of 1/06/1978. It is therefore his case that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to title rules government his service. Alternatively has contends that the punishment meted out to him is too harsh and disproportionate to the lapse form is the basis of his dismissal from service.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the Railway Administration the Executive Engineer (Construction has filed an affidavit-in-reply wherein he points out that since the petitioner was a casual labourer

( 4 ) AS defined in Rule 2501 (a) read with 2501 (b) (ii) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter called the Manual) he could on be said to be a temporary railway servant as defined in Rule 2301 of the Manual and therefore. there was no need to hold a regular inquiry before terminating his service. He. However admits the fact that t