MOTI RAM DEKA SUDHIR KUMAR DAS PRIYA GUPTA MOTI RAM DEKA TIRATH RAM LAKHANPAL UNION OF INDIA HARI KISHORE RAM CHANDRA LAL RAM DUTTA UPADHYA ONKAR NATH AKHAURIA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY:GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY:GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY:GENERAL MANAGER NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY:UNION OF INDIA:S B TEWARI:PARIMAL GUPTA:PREMCHAND THAKUR:S B TEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following Judgments of the court was delivered bv : (On behalf of K.N.WANCHOO. M. Hidayatulluh and N. Bajacop.)la Ayyangar JJ. and himself)

(2.) THESE two groups of appeals have been placed before us for hearing together, because they raise a common question of law in regard to the Constitutional validity of Rules 148(3) and 149(3) contained in the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. 1. (hereafter called the Code). The first group consists of four appeals. C.A. Nos. 711 and 712 of 1962 arise from two petitions filed by the appellants Moti Ram Deka and Sudhir Kumar Das respectively in the Assam High court. Deka was a peon employed by the North East Frontier Railway, whereas Das was a confirmed clerk. They alleged that purporting to exercise its power under Rule 148 of the Code, the respondent, the General Manager North East Frontier' Railway, terminated their services and according to them, the said termination was illegal inasmuch as the Rule under which the impugned orders of termination had been passed, was invalid. This plea has been rejected by the Assam High court and the writ petitions filed by the two appellants have been dismissed. It is against these orders of dismissal that they have come to this court by special leave.

(3.) AT this stage, it would be. convenient to refer r to the two Rules. Rule 148 deals with the termination of service and periods of notice. Rule 148(1) deals with temporary railway servants; R. 148(2) deals with apprentices, and R. 148(3) deals with other (non-pensionable) railway servants. It is with R. 148(3) that we are concerned in the present appeals. It reads thus:'(3) Other (non-pensionable) railway servants:The service of other (nonpensionable) railway servants shall be liable to termination on notice on either side for the periods shown below. Such notice is not however required in cases of dismissal or removal as a disciplinary measure after compliance with the provisions of Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution, retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, and termination of service due to mental or physical incapacity.' 'Note:-The appointing authorities are empowered to reduce or waive, at their discretion, the stipulated period of notice to be given by an employee, but the reason justifying their action should be recorded. This power cannot be re-delegated.' Then follow the respective periods for which notice has to be given. It is unnecessary to refer to these periods. We may incidentally cite Rule 148(4) as well which reads thus:'In lieu of the notice prescribed in this rule, it shall be permissible on the part of the Railway Administration to terminate the service of a railway servant by paying him the pay for the period of notice.' It is thus clear that R. 148(3) empowers the appropriate authority to terminate the services of other nonpensionable railway servants after giving them notice for the specified period, or paying them their salary for the said period in lieu of notice under R. 148(4).