Venkatarama Ayyar, J.-The petitioner was employed as a wireman in the Marina Department of the South Indian Railway company. On nth March, 1950, he was served with a notice, dated 27th February, 1950, issued by the respondent under the Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949. The contents of that notice so far as they are material for purposes of this petition are as follows:

“Whereas in the opinion of the ‘competent authority’ as defined in rule 2 of the Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949, who in your case is the Chief Mechanical Engineer, South Indian Railway, Golden Rock, there are reasonable grounds (which are given below) for believing that you are engaged in subversive activities and that consequently you are liable to have your services terminated under rule 3 of the said rules.

You are hereby required to state within 14 days of the receipt of this notice whether you accept or deny the accuracy of the above allegation. If you do not reply within that period, it will be assumed that you admit the allegation.

In either case, you may, within the same period, submit any representation you wish to make as to why your services should not be terminated under the said rules (copy attached).

If after considering your representation the competent authority decides that no further action should be taken against you, you will be informed accordingly.

If after considering your representation the competent authority considers that there are sufficient grounds for taking further action, the materials on record together with your representation will be referred to the committee of Advisers set up by the Government of India for this purpose.

You are further asked to state whether you wish to be heard in person by me or by the committee of advisers before orders are passed on your case.”

Four charges were set out in this notice. On 16th March, 1950, the petitioner sent a written explanation to the several charges. On 6th September, 1950, the respondent passed the following order: “I have considered your representation in reply to my letter No. S. 37/3, dated the 27th February, 1950, and am of the opinion that you are engaged in subversive activities in such a manner as to raise doubts about your reliability and am satisfied that your retention in public serviee is prejudicial to national security. I have decided, with the prior approval of the President that your services should be terminated under rule 3 of the Railway Seivices (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949.

You are therefore hereby given a month’s pay in lieu of notice in accordance with para. 6 of your service agreement, dated 6th February, 1942, and your service will terminate on the 16th September, 1950.”

It is the validity of this order that is the subject-matter of this application. The contention of the petitioner is that on a proper construction of the Safeguarding of National Security Rules and of Article 311 of the Constitution he was entitled to a further notice of the action proposed to be taken against him and as none such was given the order of dismissal, dated 6th September, 1950, is illegal. He accordingly prays that a writ might be issued under Article 226 quashing the order, dated 6th September, 1950. The contention of the respondent is that the notice, dated 27th February, 1950, given to the petitioner was a sufficient compliance of the requirements of the law and that further the services of the petitioner were terminated by payment of a month’s wages in accordance with the terms of the services and that consequently the order, dated 6th September, 1950, was not open to question under Article 311 of the Constitution. It was also urged that the petitioner had a remedy by way of a suit and that, therefore, the application for the issue of a writ of certiorari was not maintainable.

The first question that arises for determination is whether the order, dated 6th September, 1950, is in accordance with the prov

Click Here to Read the rest of this document