A person who is a member of a civil service of the Crown in India or holds any civil post under the Crown in India cannot be dismissed from service by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

SAPRU, J.:- These are two cross-appeals and arise out of the same judgment. Second Appeal No.751 of 1949 was filed by the Governor-General of India in Council (now Union of India) through the Oudh and Tirhut Railway. Second Appeal No.2029 was filed by the plaintiff, Mohammad Matin Qidwai. It is proposed to dispose of the two appeals by a common judgment.

2. The suit out of which these appeals arise was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that the order of his removal from service dated 20-12-1944 was void, illegal and ineffective and he is, therefore, entitled to be regarded as continuing in his post. Also included in the reliefs claimed, was a prayer for a sum of Rs.1,024-12-0 as arrears of pay and allowance from the date of his removal till the date of the suit. The defendant contested the suit on the grounds that the plaintiff was never appointed by the General Manager, Oudh and Tirhut Railway, that the Chief Engineer was authorised to remove the plaintiff, that the order of removal was justified, that the plaintiff had no cause of action for the suit, that the suit was time-barred and that he was not entitled to get the salary and allowances for the period during which he did not work. The learned Munsif decreed the suit for declaration and for recovery of Rs.597 as arrears of salary but dismissed the claim for the allowance claimed. Both parties went in appeal to the lower appellate Court. That Court confirmed the decree of the learned Munsif and dismissed both the appeals. Both, the plaintiff and the defendant, have now come up in appeal to this Court.

3. Shortly put, the plaintiffs ease was this. The plaintiff was originally appointed a sub-permanent way inspector by the Chief Engineer, Rohilkhand and Kumaun Railway, by an order dated 6-1-1930. The Rohilkhand and Kumaun Railway and the Bengal North Western Railway which were company-owned and managed railways were taken over by the State on 1-1-1943. For purposes of administration they were combined into one and were given the name of the Oudh and Tirhut Railway. On this amalgamation, the services of the plaintiff as also of the other employees were terminated from the midnight of 31-12-1942. Thereafter, the plaintiff ceased to be an employee of the Rohilkhand and Kumaun Railway and his appointment to the Oudh and Tirhut Railway was a fresh one. The two Railway Companies which were at that time company concerns had a common General Manager. He was authorised by the Government of India to offer a new appointment, along with others, to the plaintiff with effect from 1-1-1943. The terms of this new appointment were to be governed by the conditions printed on the reverse of the offer dated 13-10-1942. These terms are ex.1 in the case. The plaintiff communicated his acceptance of this offer by his letter dated 17-10-1942.

4. Objection was raised in the Court below that the offer by the General Manager was not made by the Governor-General and that, therefore, there was no valid contract of service under S.29, Contract Act. Reference was made in this connection in the lower Court to S.175(iii), Government of India Act, 1935. The lower appellate Court held that the letter of the General Manager showed that it was under the directions of the Government of India that he had made the offer before the Company was actually taken over by Government. The learned Judge further came to the conclusion that the offer was made by him on behalf of the Government of India (Railway Board) and that, therefore, the plaintiff must be deemed to have been in service under a valid contract. On the question whether there was any ambiguity in the letter of the General Manager to the plaintiff, the view of the lower appellate Court was that the letter was clear on the point that the conditions of service in future would be governed by State rules.

In view of his finding that there was nothing indefinite or uncertain about the letter, the learned Judge held that the contract was not, as w