( 1 ) RAMA Shanker Srivastava who has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was an employee in the Northern Railway. He was originally selected for appointment by the East indian and Oudh and Trihut Railway Joint Service Commission for the post of a ticket collector and was then appointed as such on 29-8-1949. According to the opposite party, the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Allahabad, the actual date of appointment was 6-9-1949. The exact date of appointment being immaterial, it is not necessary to express any view as to which of the two dates is correct. On 20th of July 1950, a charge sheet was served on the petitioner by the Assistant superintendent Commercial specifying seven forms of punishment and calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the penalty of dismissal or any lesser penalty be not imposed on him on the grounds mentioned in the charge sheet. The petitioner was allowed seven clear days from the date of the receipt of the notice to give his explanation and was told that any representation which he made in that connection would be taken into consideration by the competent authority before passing orders. It was also stated in the charge sheet that since the maximum penalty specified included removal from service and dismissal from service, he should state, while giving his written explanation to the charge sheet, whether he desired to be heard in person. The petitioner submitted his explanation. There is no information on the record whether he expressed any desire to be heard in person. His explanation was considered and by the letter dated 14/16-9-1950, intimation was sent to the petitioner that the Assistant Superintendent commercial considered that the petitioner was thoroughly unreliable and not fit for service and that in the circumstances he had passed an order removing the Petitioner from service after giving him pay in lieu of notice under the agreement with him. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Superintendent, the dismissal of which was communicated to him by the letter dated 23/28-11-1950. Then a period of about four years elapsed, whereafter the petitioner was ordered to be restored to duty. " This order was communicated to the petitioner by the letter dated 10-4-1954. Subsequent to his restoration on 23-4-1954, the petitioner was again suspended and the order of suspension specified that he would be allowed subsistence allowance and other admissible allowances during the period of suspension. On 14-6-1954, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Divisional Superintendent against this order of suspension and according to the petitioner no orders were passed on it. On 9-2-1955, the petitioner received by post a letter dated 8-2-1955, under the signature of the Divisional commercial Superintendent that the latter had, after considering the explanation of the petitioner to the charge sheet dated 12-7-1950, formed provisionally the opinion that he should be removed from service on account of certain charges specified in the letter. The petitioner in that letter was given seven clear days time from the receipt of it to show cause why the proposed penalty should not be inflicted on him. He was also told that any representation that he might make in this connection would be taken into consideration before passing final orders. The petitioner on 15-2-1955, replied to this letter and claimed that he was entitled to a full enquiry according to the amend-ed Rule 1709 of the Railway Establishment code. Thereupon an order was passed against the petitioner which was communicated to him by letter dated 4-3-1955. The order was to the effect that the petitioner be removed from service with effect from 7-3-1955. Thereupon this petition was filed by the petitioner on 11-4-1955.

( 2 ) THE main ground on which the petitioner filed this petition was that at the time when the notice contained in the letter dated 8-2-1955, was served on him no enquiry wa