MOOTHAM, C. J.:- This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of a learned Judge of this Court dated 6-12-1954.

2. The appellant was a clerk in the East Indian Railway employed in the office of the Divisional Superintendent, Lucknow. In March 1948 complaint was made against him that he had committed certain rationing offences; an enquiry was held by the railway authorities as a result of which the appellant was suspended and charges were framed against him. That was in September 1948. The appellant submitted an explanation, but the Divisional Superintendent found the charges to be proved and by an order dated 20-10-1948, he directed that the appellant be removed from service.

3-4. On 22-10-1948, the appellant was accordingly served with a notice in the following terms:

"REMOVAL NOTICE

As your services are no longer required by the Administration, you are hereby removed from, service by my order in terms of your agreement and condition of service, and you are hereby given one months pay in lieu of notice with effect from 25-10-1948 AN as provided for therein. Your services will accordingly terminate on 25-10-1948 A.N........"

This notice was signed by the Divisional Superintendent, Lucknow. The appellant appealed against this order to the Chief Operating Superintendent, but without success. On 5-9-1949, he filed a suit for a declaration that the order was void and that he was still in the service of the railway administration; he also sought a decree for Rs.1,395-7- as salary due to him. On 20-8-1951, the suit was dismissed and on 31-5-1952, an appeal therefrom was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge at Malihabad. A second appeal to this Court was no more successful but the learned Judge granted special leave to appeal to a Bench.

5. The appellants principal contention is that the notice of 22-10-1948, purporting to terminate his contract of service, was not signed by a competent authority and was therefore of no effect in law. He further contends that even if the notice terminating his services was duly signed the provisions of S.243, Government of India Act, 1935, were not complied with, and that therefore in either case his contract of service still subsists.

6. The appellant entered into the service of the East Indian Railway on 14-8-1940, upon which date he executed an agreement with the Governor-General in Council (acting by and through the East Indian Railway Administration), paras 1 and 3 of which read as follows:

"1. In this Agreement and for the purposes of every clause, part and provision thereof, the expression

(a) "Railway servant" means the said Mohd. Mukhtar Siddique,

(b) "Administration" means the Governor-General-in-Council, acting by and through the General Manager or other proper officer of the East Indian Railway.

(3) The railway Servant shall be subject to the following conditions of service, namely, (a) that such service is terminable at any time by either party on one months notice in writing or by the Administration on one months pay in lieu of notice, (b) that in no circumstances shall the railway servant be entitled to gratuity or pension, though he will be eligible for a gratuity for good, efficient, faithful and continuous service at the discretion of the Administration and (c) that the Administration has full power and authority at any time, for any reason that it may consider sufficient, to suspend or dismiss or remove him from the service without previous notice or otherwise punish the railway servant according to the rules of the service in which he is for the time being employed."

This agreement was signed for and on behalf of the Governor-General in Council by the then Divisional Superintendent, East Indian Railway, Lucknow.

7. It is important to observe that it is the respondents case that the appellants contract of service was terminated under sub-cl. (a) of cl. 3 of the service agreement; it is no part of the respondents case that the appellant was removed from service under sub-cl (c) of that