AGARWALA, J.:- This is a special appeal against a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:-

2. The appellants are employed as Storemen in the Defence Department, Union of India, and were working at the Central Ordnance Depot, Chheoki, Allahabad. There was a report about the theft of certain articles and a police enquiry was at first held and later on the matter was referred to what is called a "court of enquiry" which held the preliminary enquiry and came to the conclusion that the appellants were responsible for the thefts and they were suspended with effect from 15-9-1952 and they are still under suspension.

The petition under Art.226, as originally presented on 27-8-1953, merely stated the facts, as they existed on that date and the prayer made was that tile opposite party, which was the Ministry of Defence, Union of India, be commanded to withdraw the order of suspension passed on 15-9-1952 against the appellants and restore them to their posts. Later on, the petition was amended. Nine other persons, including those who were members of the "court of enquiry" were added as opposite parties and a fresh affidavit was filed and an additional relief was claimed.

The fresh facts mentioned were that the "court of enquiry" had completed its investigation and had submitted its report to the Officer-in-charge, A.O.C., Records, Jubbulpur - the officer who is stated to be the person having the authority to dismiss or, otherwise, punish the appellants. Various irregularities in the conduct of the enquiry by the "court of enquiry" were also alleged.

These irregularities are mainly three, namely (1) that the appellants were asked to give evidence although this was not legal as the charge against them was of a criminal nature, (2) that the witnesses examined in the preliminary enquiry were not examined de novo when the appellants were charge-sheeted, and the statements of these witnesses were merely read over to the appellants and they were asked to cross-examine those witnesses upon that evidence and that the copies of the depositions of the witnesses who were examined in examination-in-chief in the absence of the appellants were not supplied to them when they were asked to cross-examine them and (3) that the members of the "court of enquiry" were not present throughout the proceedings.

It is further stated that on the basis of the report of the "court of enquiry", the Officer-in-charge, A.O.C., Records, Jubbulpur has charge-sheeted the appellants and has issued notice to the appellants asking them to show cause why they should not be dismissed from service or, otherwise, punished.

3. No steps have yet been taken against the appellants by the Officer-in-Charge, A.O.C., Records, Jubbulpur, and no relief is claimed against that officer obviously because he is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. The fresh relief claimed now is that a writ in the nature of prohibition or certiorari calling for the record and findings of the enquiry proceedings be issued and after examining the validity of the proceedings, this Court may be pleased to quash them.

4. The allegations contained in the affidavits filed by the appellants as to the irregularities committed during the course of the enquiry were not admitted on behalf of the respondents. It is not necessary for us to go into details in regard to the alleged irregularities as the petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge upon other grounds. The learned single Judge held that this was not a suitable case in which the Court should exercise its powers under Art.226.

The grounds on which he dismissed the petition were, firstly, that this was a case where an equally efficacious and adequate remedy, by way of a regular suit, would be available after a final order had been passed against the petitioners and secondly, that no relief should be given at an intermediate stage of the proceedin