A. N. SURTI, J. ( 1 ) THE question which I am required to consider in the present petition is whether a person who holds a civil post under the Railway Administration can be removed by any authority subordinate to the appointing authority. ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the grievance of the Petitioner a few relevant facts may be stated. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was born at Beawar on August 31 1922 and was holding the post of a watch and ward overseer (now designated as Head Rakshak ). He was holding the post of Sub Inspector Security (Grade II) and was sent for training for the said post. ( 4 ) THE Chief Security Officer by his order dated March 3 1958 promoted the petitioner Sub Inspector Security (Grade II) Railway Protection Force and was posted at Surendranagar. The Chief Security Officer also confirmed the Petitioner in the said post with effect from September 1 1960 by an order dated November 8 1960 He was also promoted Sub Inspector (Grade I) with effect from April 6 1955 and was confirmed in the said post with effect from April 6 1955 that is the date of promotion by an order dated August 11 1967 passed on behalf of the Chief Security Officer Churchgate Bombay. Suffice it to state that right from March 1958 the Chief Security Officer was passing various orders in favor of the petitioner to hold the aforesaid various posts and at various places. ( 5 ) BY the impugned order Annexure I dated December 15 1975 the Security Officer Western Railway Ajmer who is also shown as the appointing authority was of the opinion that it was in the public interest to pass the impugned order whereby he gave a notice to the petitioner that on his completing 30years service on August 30 1974 the petitioner should retire from service from fore-noon of March 18 1976 or from the date of expiry of three months computed from the date of service of this notice on him whichever was later. It may be emphasised that the impugned order Annexure I dated December 18 1975 in clearest terms provides that the Security Officer was appointing authority. ( 6 ) ON the aforesaid facts a strong grievance was made by Mr. It may be emphasised that the impugned order Annexure I dated December 18 1975 in clearest terms provides that the Security Officer was appointing authority. ( 6 ) ON the aforesaid facts a strong grievance was made by Mr. Syed that having regard to Article 311 (1)of the Constitution of India the impugned order is bad and is violative of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India. In substance Mr. Syed urged before me that the Security Officer never appointed the petitioner as Sub-Inspector Security Grade II or Sub- Inspector Grade I. Mr. Syed urged that all throughout his career right from March 14 1958 the petitioner was holding the post of Sub Inspector Security Grade II and Sub Inspector Security Grade I as ordered and appointed by Chief Security Officer. Under the circumstances Mr. Syed urged that the Security Officer is an officer subordinate to the appointing authority and that is why the impugned order Annexure I to the main petition suffers from the vice of Article violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution. ( 7 ) IN the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Railway Administration Mr. Pandit the learned advocate for the Railway Administration invited my attention to the contents of paragraph 7 which are in the following terms:"regarding para 10 I say that the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service on 23-3-1976 been under this office order issued vide No. SOAE/90/3/1 dated 18 in terms of Chief Security Officer Churchgates confidential letter No. SFE 90/3/1/1 dated 10-12-75". It may be significantly noticed that even in the affidavit-in-reply the said letter of the Chief Security Officer was not produced by the Railway Administration. ( 8 ) BUT Mr. Pandit at the time of the hearing of the petition produced before me a letter dated December 10 1975 which has been addressed even by the Deputy Chief Security Officer to Security Officer wherein it is stated as follows:"the committee having scrutinised the confidential Rolls and Service Records of Shri Gulab Singh SIPF consider that he is not fit to be retained in service beyond 30 years of service". It may be emphasised that even the said letter dated December 19 1975 which is produced by Mr. Pandit is not duly signed by the Chief Security Officer but is signed by Deputy Chief Security Officer obviously an officer subordinate to Chief Security Officer. It may be emphasised that even the said letter dated December 19 1975 which is produced by Mr. Pandit is not duly signed by the Chief Security Officer but is signed by Deputy Chief Security Officer obviously an officer subordinate to Chief Security Officer. But apart from the contents of the letter dated December 10 1975 the impu- gned order Annexure I to the main petition dated December 18 1975 clearly provides that the Security Officer Ajmer was of the opinion that it is in the public interest to pass the impugned order. Under the Circumstances can it be said by any stretch of imagination that the Chief Security Officer who is the appointing authority has ever applied his mind of was ever of the opinion that the services of the petitioner should come to an end by his retirement as mentioned in the impugned order Annexure I? Mr. Pandit also invited my attention to the office order passed by the Chief Security Officer on September 17 1974 whereby the Chief Secu- rity Officer empowerd the Deputy Chief Security Officer Security Officers and the Assistant Security Officers to appoint persons as members of the force or as Sub Inspectors or as Sub Inspectors Assistant Sub Inspectors Head Rakshaks Senior Rakshaks and Rakshaks but even that order hardly assists the Railway Administration for the simple reason that the petitioner in the instant case was Sub Inspector on March 15 1958 and long 14 or 15 years are over after the appointment of the petitioner as Sub-Inspector Security Grade II Railway Protection Force and it is only after a lapse of 14 years that the Chief Security has empowered his subordinates to appoint the aforesaid persons as the members of the protection force of the Railway Administration. ( 9 ) IN view of what has been stated above what is the material before me to come to the conclusion that in the intant case the Chief Security Officer who is the appointing authority has applied his mind and that he formed an opinion for the purpose of retiring the petitioner from his services as mentioned in the impugned order Annexure I to the main petition. In view of the aforesaid facts I am convinced that by passing the impugned order the Railway Administration has made a flagrant violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution. In view of the aforesaid facts I am convinced that by passing the impugned order the Railway Administration has made a flagrant violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution. The Railway administra- tion was not at all justified in passing the impugned order notwithstanding the provisions contained in Article 311 (1) of the Constitution. ( 10 ) AS a result of the aforesaid discussion I must necessarily accept the petition filed by the railway employee and accordingly I must set aside and quash the impugned order Annexure I to the main petition. ( 11 ) BUT Mr. Syed wants to be over safe for his client. In course of the hearing Mr. Syed brought to my notice that he did not press the other contentions as the petitioner was likely to succeed on the aforesaid point. ( 12 ) THAT brings us to the consideration as to what reliefs the petitioner is entitled to get as a result of the success in the petition. the petitioner in view of my aforesaid conclusion is certainly entitled to a declaration that he should be treated in continuous service of the Railway Administration from the date of the impugned order and accordingly be should be given all back wages with all past and future benefits. Accor- dingly the petitioner will be deemed to be in service as if the order or retirement is not passed. The petitioner will be entitled to 8et all back wages and all services emoluments and all the benefits of seniority pay etc. permissible under the Rules. In the result the petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute with costs. Petition allowed. .