Order This Rule is directed against an order of termination of the petitioner's services as a Traffic Manager under paragraph 18 of Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations. The petitioner at the material time was holding the post of Traffic Manager under the Calcutta State Transport Corporation. It is alleged by the petitioner that only to threat the employees of the Corporation the Minister in-charge of Transport directed to terminate the services of some of the employees arbitrarily. Without holding any enquiry, without framing any charge against the petitioner, on 1.11.74 when he went to the office of the General Manager who took the petitioner to the chamber of the Chairman, a closed envelope was handed over to the petitioner. That was a notice by which the petitioner's services were terminated with immediate effect. He was given a cheque for Rs. 3,822/- being the three months' pay. 2. Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner was a permanent employee of the Corporation. The State Transport Corporation was established by the Government of West Bengal under S. 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. So the employees of the Corporation, according to Me. Mukherjee, get the status of the employees in public employment and apart from the regulations, termination of services of an employee in public employment even in the absence of any specific rule, should be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed upon a Bench decision of this Court in United Commercial Bank v. V.J.T. Vyas. (l977(1) CLJ 498). 3. In that case the respondent joined the service under the then United Commercial Bank Limited in 194H. The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 came into force on 31.3.70. On coming into operation of the said Act the United Commercial Bank Limited became United Commercial Bank and was commonly considered as a Nationalised Bank. In January 1973 the respondent V.J.T. Vyas was transferred to Silchar branch but he did not vacate the staff quarter at Alipur. He was asked to vacate the quarter repeatedly on his transfer. As he did not do so, his services were terminated by the Bank with immediate effect with notice. The Division Bench of this Court held that 1970 Act is a social legislation intended to take over the business and management of commercial Banks. He was asked to vacate the quarter repeatedly on his transfer. As he did not do so, his services were terminated by the Bank with immediate effect with notice. The Division Bench of this Court held that 1970 Act is a social legislation intended to take over the business and management of commercial Banks. The employees of such Banks come within the purview of public employment. Regulations apart the employment under the nationalized bank is public employment and such an employee gets a status. Termination of contracts which affect the status of employees in public employment must therefore be in consonance with the principles of natural justice. In other words the termination of service of an employee in public employment or interference with the status of an employee in public employment eyen in the absence of any specific rule, must be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. 4. The employees have been defined in paragraph 3(e) of the Regulations which includes persons employed by the State Government in connection with the State Transport Undertaking and continuing in office immediately after the establishment of the Corporation. Paragraph 18 provides that the appointing authority may terminate the services of an employee by giving one month's notice or in the case of temporary personnel three month's notice. By notification dated 14.10.77, paragraph 18 of the Regulations has been amended. After Regulation 18 paragraph 18A has been inserted which provides that the appointing authority may by an order, terminate the services of a permanent employee; provided that no order of termination shall be passed except after an enquiry in which the said employee has been informed of the reason for such termination and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. So, it appears from the aforesaid amendment that although the previous regulation 18 does not provide any opportunity of hearing, by the aforesaid amendment a reasonable opportunity of being heard is being afforded to the employee before an order of termination could be passed. In my view, the same principle as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the United Commercial Bank's case shall be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner being an employee of the State Transport Corporation, Calcutta, which was established under S.3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act. In my view, the same principle as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the United Commercial Bank's case shall be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner being an employee of the State Transport Corporation, Calcutta, which was established under S.3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act. 1950, gets the status of public employee and his services could not be terminated in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. In view of above, this Rule is made absolute. The impugned order of termination is quashed by a writ of Certiorari. Let a writ of Mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to give effect to such termination. 6. There wil1 be no order for costs. It is not necessary for me to decide the other points raised in this Rule. So, those points are left undecided. Rule made absolute.