BALAKDAS VITHOBA Vs. ASST SECURITY OFFICERS E RLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also dispose of the connected Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 31, 34 and 39, all of 1957. All these appeals are directed against the order of Choudhuri J. refusing to interfere with the removal of the petitioners from service.

(2.) It is not in dispute that all the petitioners are Class IV employees of the railway administration and were appointed by the Superintendent, Watch and Ward Department, Chakradharpur. In the year 1955, this department was given the name of Security Force, and the Chief Security Officer was declared its head. Rules governing the conditions of service of the Security Force were made by the President purporting to act under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Under these rules, the Assistant Security Officer was designated as the appointing and dismissing authority of Class IV servants in the Security Force. All the petitioners were removed from service by the Assistant Security Officer acting under the powers conferred by these rules.

(3.) The only point that has been urged before us against the orders of the learned Single Judge is that since the Assistant Security Officer is an authority below the rank of the Superintendent, Watch and Ward, his orders contravene Clause (1) of Article 311 of the Constitution.