ORDER Pandey, J.- 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to cal up and quash by certiorari the departmental enquiry proceeding drawn up against the petitioner, including the final order therein passed on 4 February 1963 he was dismissed from the service, of the M. P. State Road Transport Corporation. 2. The facts of the case are these. The petitioner was ,employed as an Assistant Traffic Inspector under the Central Provinces Transport Services, which was a State• owned Transport Undertaking, till 1 June 1962 when the M, P. State Road Transport Corporation constituted under section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act" 1950.(64 of 1950) took it over. The petitioner agreed, to his services being transferred to the Corporation, on the following conditions. (i) His existing pay and scale and the conditions of his service will not be affected by the transfer: (ii) The transfer of his service will not be treated as an interruption of his service. In other works, he will be entitled to leave and other benefits on the same basis as if his service under the Corporation was a continuation of the total uninterrupted service under the Central Provinces Transport Services. 3. By an order dated 6 December 1961, a departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner on the following two charges relating to misconduct which, it was alleged, he had committed on 29 June 1961: (i) Gross negligence in checking duty, (ii) Abating dishonesty in connexion with the business of the concern. The enquiry was duly held and the report dated 13 April 1962 to the effect that both the charges were proved against the petitioner was submitted to the authority competent to punish him Thereupon, as usual, a show cause notice dated 10 July 1962 was issued to the petitioner and he submitted thereto his reply dated 21 July 1962. Finally, by the impugned order dated 4 February 1962, the Divisional Manager dismissed the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has called in aid Article 311 to support this petition for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is not disputed before us and is otherwise obvious that, while the petitioner was employed under the Central Provinces Transport Services, which was a State Undertaking he was a member of a civil service of this State and was, therefore, entitled to the protection afforded by Article 311. It is not disputed before us and is otherwise obvious that, while the petitioner was employed under the Central Provinces Transport Services, which was a State Undertaking he was a member of a civil service of this State and was, therefore, entitled to the protection afforded by Article 311. The Central Provinces Transport Services Vs. Ishwari Prasad Tiwari, L. P. A. No.2 of 1959, decided on the 27th July 1961 and Nawab Ali and another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another, M. P. No. 246 of 1961, decided on the 14th December 1961. There was a radical change in. that position when, with the consent of the petitioner, his services were transferred to the M. P. State Road Transport Corporation. He became an employee of an incorporated body constituted under a Central Act and ceased to hold a civil post under the State within the meaning of Article 311. Speaking generally, the legal position is that employee of statutory corporations like the Damodar Valley Corporation, the Calcutta Port Trust, Improvement Trust, the State Co-operative Bank, the State Bank of India, a District Board or Municipality, which are separate legal entities having independent existence, do not hold such civil posts. Bibhuti Bhusan Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1953 Cat. 581; Damodar Valley Corporation Vs. Provat Roy, 60 Ca1. WN 1023; Nagendra Kumar Vs. Commissioner, Port of Calcutta, AIR 1955 Cal. 56 ; Mohammad Ahmad Kidwai Vs. Chairman, Improvement Trust, ILR 1957 (2) All. 280 FB.; Baleswar Prasad Vs. Agent State Bank of India, Gaya Branch, ILR 37 Patna 431; Suprasad Vs. State Bank of India, AIR 1962 Cal. 72 and Ramnath Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Bharat and others, 1959 JLJ 459 . In regard to the employees of a company, the shares of which are wholly owned by Government, the position is not different: Subodh Ranjan Ghosh Vs. Sindri Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd., AIR 1957 Pat. 10 and K. M. Shrivastava Vs. General Manager, Hindustan Steel (Private) Ltd., M. P. No, 225 of 1957, decided on the 19th November.1958. The principle underlying these decisions applies, and has, been extended, to corporations constituted under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (64 of 1950): Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Income-tax Officer, AIR 1962 AP 323 and Prafulla Kumar Vs. Calcutta State Transport Corporation, AIR I 963 Cal. 116. The principle underlying these decisions applies, and has, been extended, to corporations constituted under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (64 of 1950): Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Income-tax Officer, AIR 1962 AP 323 and Prafulla Kumar Vs. Calcutta State Transport Corporation, AIR I 963 Cal. 116. In view of these authorities, which, in our opinion, correctly state the law, the petitioner ceased to hold a civil post under the State as soon as his services were transferred to the M. P. State Road Transport Corporation and he could not, thereafter, claim the protection afforded by Article 311. 5. It is, however, urged that, since the conditions of the petitioner's service remained unaffected by the transfer, he cannot be regarded as having forfeited the constitutional protection under Article 311. We are unable to accept this contention if it implies that, notwithstanding the transfer of the petitioner's service, he continued to remain under the disciplinary control of the authority which initially appointed him. In our opinion, as soon as he, by reason of his transfer, ceased to hold a civil post under the State, he became disentitled to invoke the protection afforded by Article 311 even though, by one of the stipulations governing the transfer, the conditions of his service remained unaffected. The reason is that the protection under the Article, as conceived and made available, attaches to certain persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or any State and cannot be the subject-matter of any contract. In this situation, the most that the stipulation retaining unaffected the conditi0ns of the petitioner's service can mean is that the authority duly and legally substituted in place of the old employer wit substantially make available to him conditions not less favourable than those applicable to him immediately before the transfer. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that the conclusions about the petitioner's guilt were reached without a fair and proper consideration of the evidence led in the enquiry and the final order passed was also vitiated because it was grounded upon a consideration of the past service record without giving to the petitioner any opportnnity to show that it was not really adverse or that it could not be used against him. In the end the counsel argued that the M. P. State Road Transport Corporation could not punish the petitioner for a fault committed before his service was transferred to the Corporation. To each of these contentions, there is an answer. Even in a case properly falling under Article 311, there can be no interference with findings of fact recorded in the departmental enquiry if there be some legal evidence on which the conclusions can be based: State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 . Again, if the past service record is net made available to the delinquent employee, the punishment awarded to him is not vitiated where, as in this case, such record is used only to see whether a lesser punishment could be awarded. Finally, we are of the opinion that since the Corporation took over all the assets and liabilities of the Central Provinces Transport Services and the petitioner's services were continued uninterrupted [R. 2 and R. 3], it had the right to proceed with pending disciplinary proceedings. In any event, as was pointed out in K.M. Shrivastava's case, M. P. No. 225 of 1957, decided on the 19th November 1958, whatever other remedy the petitioner, who does not hold any civil post, may have, he cannot bring before this Court a dispute of this character for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. The result is that the petition fails and is dismissed. The petitioner shall bear his won costs and payout of the security amount those incurred by the respondent. The remaining amount of security shall be refunded. Hearing fee Rs. 100.