A servant is ordinarily at the pleasure of the master unless that pleasure is curtailed by a contract or statutory provisions. In the absence of such curtailment, the remedy for wrongful dismissal lies in filing a suit for damages, and specific enforcement of the contract of employment cannot be granted.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has come to this Court on the allegation that he was appointed to the post of organizer of Agencies by the New India Assurance Company Limited, Agra. After the State took over the insurance business by passing the Life Insurance Corporation Ordinance the services of the petitioner were transferred to the Life Insurance Corporation with effect from 1-9-1956 upon the same terms and conditions on which he was employed in the New India assurance Company, Agra and was given the appointment of Zonal Manager, Life Insurance corporation of India, Central Zone, Kanpur. His designation was changed from 1-1-1957 to that of a Field Officer. One Sri C. P. Ambesh who, according to the petitioners allegation; is inimical to him filed a complaint against the petitioner to the Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Agra, respondent No. 1, alleging that the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 460 alleged to have been handed over by him to the petitioner. According to the petitioner no such cheque was given to him by Sri Ambesh. The respondent No. 1 made Over the matter to the police and the petitioner is being prosecuted under Sections 406/420/467,. P. C. at the instance of the police in a criminal court. On 22-9-1958 the respondent No. 1 issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be suspended under Clauses 40 and 41 of the Staff Regulations, 1956. The petitioner sent a reply to the show cause notice. On 27-1-1959 the petitioner was suspended under Clause 41 of the Staff Regulations, 1956. In the suspension order it was mentioned that there were certain fresh complaints of misappropriation also but the same were not specified. On 20-2-1959 the petitioner filed an appeal to the Executive Committee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, bombay against the suspension order under Clause 42 of the Staff Regulations, 1956. On 11-3-1959 the petitioner received a letter dated 18-2-1959 from respondent No. 1 in which new charges were levelled against him and he was asked to submit his explanation. By a separate letter dated 3-3-1959 which the petitioner also received on 11-3-1959 some more allegations were made against him and he was also called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. On 17-3-1959 the petitioner wrote to the respondent No. 1 inviting his attention to the letters issued by him and requesting for copies of complaints forming the basis of the charges and other materials in order to furnish his explanation. On 9-4-1959 the respondent No. 4 issued a letter to the petitioner which was received by him on 11-4-1959 stating therein that it had been concluded that the petitioner had no explanation to submit. The petitioner again sent a telegram to respondent No. 1 requesting for the copies of the documents immediately. On 13-3-1959 while the petitioner was under suspension the respondent no. 1 referred the various complaints for investigation to the police and a case was registered against the petitioner in terms of that report. The respondent No. 1 terminated the services of the petitioner by a notice published in a local daily amar Ujala of 9th May, 1959. On 21-5-1959 the petitioner received a copy of the formal order of dismissal dated 7-5-1959. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Executive Committee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Bombay, which was dismissed on 29-4-1960. On these facts the petitioner has come to this Court and prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the dismissal order dated 7-5-1959 and the appellate order communicated to him through the letter dated 29-4-1960. There is also a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as in service and to pay him all his arrears of salary and other amounts due to him. In addition there is the usual prayer for the issue of any other suit