Ramakrishnan, J.

This appeal is filed by the General Manager, Southern Railway Madras, from the order of Veeraswami, J., in Writ Petition No. 1032 of 1959, a petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras, terminating the services of the respondent in this appeal, J. B. Purushotham. The prior facts which are necessary for a consideration of the appeal are briefly the following. The respondent entered the railway service on 1 February, 1935, and was promoted as driver in 1945, and confirmed in that post in October 1946. Since it was believed that he had engaged himself in subversive activities, he was arrested by the police on 1 April, 1948 and remained under detention till 26 February, 1951, during which period he was also placed under suspension. Apparently the period of detention came to an end on 26 February, 1951. On 2 April, 1951, he applied to the General Manager to be posted back to duty. The General Manager consulted the police about his activities, and, on receiving an adverse report, he issued to the respondent on 16 October, 1951, a notice under the Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949, and he was asked to show cause against punishment. The respondent made his representations and his case was referred to a committee of advisers. He was given the opportunity to be present before the committee. The committee gave a report against him. Then the General Manager informed the respondent that the department was satisfied about the respondent's subversive activities, that his retention in public service was prejudicial to national security, and that it was provisionally decided to terminate his services, and accordingly he was asked to show cause why action as proposed should not be taken against him. The respondents seems to have also made certain representations against the action proposed to be taken. At that time, there were before the railway authorities, a number of other cases similar to that of the respondent, and the cases were all considered together. In the counter-affidavit of the Personnel Officer of the railway filed before this Court, in the writ petition, it was further alleged that at this point, the General Manager was advised to drop further proceedings initiate against the respondent and others under the Railway Services (safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949, but that action might be taken under rule 148 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. Thereupon, on 25 May, 1959, the respondent was informed that it was decided to drop the action initiated against him under the Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules and he was reinstated with immediate effect and directed to resume forthwith. The respondent's contention is that this order, purporting to be dated 25 May 1959, was received by his wife only on 6 July, 1959 and this is also admitted by the railway in their counter-affidavit. Immediately there followed a letter dated 14 July, 1959, issued by the railway authorities which purported to terminate the services of the respondent in accordance with rule 148 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code with effect from 15 July, 1959. There is some discrepancy between the case of the respondent and that of the department as to whether in the interregnum between 6 July, 1959 and 14 July, 1959 the respondent was allowed to join duty or not. The respondent's case is that when he reported for duty at Erode on 11 July, 1959 the foreman refused to entertain him. The department's version is that the foreman asked him to report for duty the next day, but the respondent did not turn up. But nothing material turns upon the determination of this limited controversy for the purpose of the present writ proceedings. The respondent's real grievance is that he was under suspension from 1 April, 1948 till 25 May, 1959, when the railway authorit