( 1 ) THE petitioner in this case prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order dated the 7th May, 1964, of the State Government suspending him pending an enquiry on certain charges against him and for quashing a notice issued to him on 1st August, 1964, asking him to file his reply to the charges which are the subject-matter of the enquiry. He also prays that a direction be issued to the opponents prohibiting them from proceeding with the departmental enquiry against him.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a probationary Naib Tahsildar While he was posted in 1961 at bilaigarh, the Commissioner, Raipur Division, passed an order for the holding of an enquiry against him on as many as thirteen charges, and also made an order on 3rd August, 1961, suspending him pending the departmental enquiry. Later on, it came to the notice of the Government that the Commissioner. Raipur Division, was not competent to order a departmental enquiry against the petitioner with a view to impose on him a major punishment, and the orders passed by the commissioner directing the holding of a departmental enquiry and suspending the applicant were invalid. Therefore, on 7th May, 1964, the Government passed two orders, one setting aside the Commissioner's order, dated the 3rd August, 1961, suspending the petitioner and another placing him again under suspension pending the departmental enquiry ordered this time by the Government itself. On 1st August, 1964, a notice was issued to the petitioner to file his reply to the charges framed against him.

( 3 ) IN the meantime on 6th June, 1964, the petitioner gave a notice to the government for the purpose of putting an end to his services. That notice was received by the Government on 9th June, 1964. The material portion of the notice ran as follows:

"whereas the undersigned hold no charge this day and is not duly and intends to bring the termination of his employment with the Government of M. P. forthwith on receipt of this writing and whereas as required by the service rules the undersigned do hereby forfeit and relinquish his claim for one month's pay or allowance whichever is necessary. Now therefore this notice is hereby served as required under the rules on receipt whereof the relationship of employer and employee now existing between the Government of Madhya Pradesh and the undersigned shall cease to exist and consequently all rights, duties and obligations arising from and under the aforesaid relationship shall hereafter absolutely cease. " (sic)

( 4 ) THERE is no dispute in regard to the aforestated facts. It is also not disputed that the petitioner being a probationary Government servant is governed by madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi-permanent Service)Rules, 1960, (hereinafter called the Rules ). The notice, which the applicant gave to the Government for terminating his services purported to be under Rule 12 of the rules. That rule is in the following terms-

"12. (a) Subject to any provision contained in the order of appointment or in any agreement between the government and the temporary government servant, the service of a temporary government servant who is not in quasi-permanent service shall he liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the government servant: Provided that the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith by payment of him of a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month or any agreed longer period: provided further that the payment of allowances shall be subject to the conditions under which such allowances are admissible. (b) The period of such notice shall he one month unless otherwise agreed between the Government and the Government servant. "

Shri Pandey learned counsel for th