Rule 148 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code is a valid rule that applies to all non-pensionable railway servants and that the exclusion of pensionable servants from the rule is not discriminatory.

ORDER :- This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras dated 30-12-1958 informing the petitioner that as his services were no longer required by the Railway Administration they were, in accordance with Rule 148 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol.I, terminated with effect from the forenoon of 30-12-1958. By the same order, the General Manager further informed the petitioner that he would be paid one months pay in lieu of notice of termination of his services. The petitioner was served with the order the same day. This petition was presented on 4-3-1959.

2. The petitioner entered service in June 1949 as a ticket collector in the then South Indian Railway. He was so appointed by the General Manager, South Indian Railway. After the reorganisation of various zones of the railways, the petitioner became an employee of the Indian Railways working in the Southern Railway. In 1950 he was promoted as a travelling ticket examiner and functioned as such until the date of the termination of his services. By a communication dated 24-2-1956, the General Manager informed the petitioner that he considered that he was reasonably suspected to be engaged in subversive activities, that his retention in service was, on that account, prejudicial to national security and that, consequently, it was proposed to terminate his services in terms of Rule 148 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, as provided for in Rule 3 of the Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1954, and he called upon the petitioner to submit to the President of India within specified time his representation against the action proposed to be taken. The same communication also apprised the petitioner that it was proposed to place him under suspension, pending conclusion of the proceedings against him, but that if he so wished, he would be permitted to proceed on Such leave as might be admissible to him, with effect from 10-3-1956 and that he might express his wish in that behalf.

The communication contained two annexures setting out the reasons for the General Manager considering that the petitioner was suspected to be engaged in subversive activities in 1952, 1953 and 1954 and also associated with others in such activities. These annexures contained details of several examples of such activities. In effect, the charges against the petitioner were mainly two fold: (1) that he had become a member of a group who sponsored a series of acts of sabotage during those years and (2) that he together with one Ayyappan secretary of the Kozhikode branch of the Southern Railway labour Union, organised sabotage on the Shoranur Mangalore Railway line by getting a big boulder placed on the track. The petitioner, by his representation dated 15-3-1956, denied the charges. By an order received by the petitioner on 14-4-1956, he was placed under suspension. Eventually by an order dated 12-12-1958, the General Manager informed the petitioner that if had been decided not to proceed with the action initiated against him under the Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules 1954, and that he was reinstated in service with immediate effect and was directed to resume duty forthwith. It was thereafter that the petitioners services were terminated under Rule 148 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code.

3. The petitioner has in this Court impugned the order of termination of his services by contending that the railway authorities having failed to send him out of service on the basis of the show cause notice, had resorted to Rule 148 and terminated his services thereunder solely to victimise him for his trade union activities, that Rule 148 contravened Article 311(2) of the Constitution and that once the railway administration attempted to take action for certain specific reasons against a railway employee and it was found that the reasons did not give any opportunity for such a