Civil servants hold office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor, subject to the restrictions imposed by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, and their removal from service cannot be challenged in a civil suit on the ground that the work they were required to perform was not a part of their duty.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal against a reversing decree of the lower appeal Court by which his suit for declaration that his removal from service by an order dated 8 August 1957 is void and that, notwithstanding that order, he continues to hold the post of a Traffic Pointsman was dismissed. This judgment will also dispose of Second Appeal No. 347 of 1961, which is directed against a similar reversing decree of the lower appeal Court in a like suit filed in identical circumstances by one Badriprasati.

( 2 ) AT the material time, Rameshwar Singh and Badriprasad were employed as confirmed Traffic Pointsman and served in the station yard at Bilaspur. In the course or their duties, they were utilized at times to perform the work of coupling and uncoupling of wagons. Their grievance was that this work of coupling and uncoupling of wagons was not a part of their duty and that, whenever they were required to do that work, they should have been paid acting allowance. On 16 March 1957, they interviewed the District Operating Superintendent and conveyed to him, inter, alia, this grievance. On the same day, they were suspended at the instance of the District OperatingSuperintendent. Soon afterwards, each was served with a charge-sheet requiring him to answer the following charge: "on 16-3-57 while you were on duty in the 17 to 1 hrs. shoft, you were deputed to perform the duties of coupling and uncoupling of wagons which you flatly refused to do. On receipt of such report, the D. 0. S. Bilaspur personally came to the station where he met you and explained to you that this forms one of your fundamental duties and that refusal of orders would mean serious action. In spite of that, you still refused to carry out the duties of coupling and uncoupling of wagons in violation of Standing Order No. 34 of Ex. B. N. Railway Gazette No. 9 dated 2-3-49. Your refusal to perform these duties resulted in serious repercussion to goods train operation in Bilaspur yard. " After Rameshwar Singh and Badriprasad submitted their written explanations, a committee of enquiry held a regular departmental enquiry, examined witnesses and submitted its report to the effect that they were guilty ot "refusal of duty". Having read the explanations and the 'report of the enquiry committee, the Divisional Operating Superintendent served upon each a notice dated 13 June 1957 intimating, in the usual way, his conclusion that the charge was proved and his provisional opinion that he proposed to remove the delinquent employee from service and further requiring each to show cause why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him, A copy of the report of enquiry was given to each along with the show cause notice and he was informed that any representation he wished to make would be taken into consideration before passing the final order, In pursuance of these notices, Rameshwar Singh and Badriprasad submitted their representations dated 22 July 1957 and thereupon the impugned orders dated 8 August 1957 were passed.

( 3 ) RAMESHWAR Singh and Badriprasad based their claims on the following grounds:

(i) They had no proper notice of the allegations against them. (ii) They were not given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause. (iii) There was no just and proper enquiry. (iv) They could be removed only by the General Manager. (v) The principles of natural justice were not observed in that they were not given a hearing before tneir appeals were dismissed. (vi) Their removal from service was wrong and without justification for the reason that the work of coupling and uncoupling, of wagons was not a part of their duty and it could not be found that they had retused to perform their duties.

( 4 ) THE Court of first instance decreed the two claims on the view that (1) the work of coupling and uncoupling of wagons was not a part of the legitimate duty of a Traffic Pointsman; (2) only one show cause notice was given and (3) Rameshwar Singh and Badriprasad,