JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - The Union of India representing the Northern Railway has come up in Second appeal in a suit filed by the respondent challenging the order of removal passed against him. Admittedly, the respondent was a class IV employee and was posted as a Fireman at Kanpur in November, 1956 when he was given orders for transfer. It is alleged that he was never served with the order of transfer though he otherwise came to know about it and made representations for its cancellation. Admittedly, he bad not joined the duty at the place of his positing after transfer and only reported there in May, 1957. Thereafter he was served with a suspension order and one man enquiry against him was set up. The Loco Inspect or, Allahabad was appointed the Enquiry Officer. After having been found guilty, he was given a second show cause notice and ultimately the D. M. E. passed the impugned order. After exhausting the departmental channels without success, the plaintiff filed the present suit. The courts below have concurrently held that the constitution of one man Enquiry Committee was wrong and against the rules and has also found some other grounds to declare the order of removal as invalid. 2. In appeal, the entire dispute was raised again but in my opinion the appeal can be disposed of on a short point. It is not disputed that Discipline and Appeal Rules for Non-gazetted Railway Servants apply to the facts of the present case and they have the statutory force of law. Any violation of these rules, therefore, would afford a ground to the plaintiff to question the legality of the order of removal. Rule 42 of these Rules lays down how the Enquiry Committee has to be constituted. According to it, in the case of Non-gazetted Railway Servants, departmental enquiry committee should normally be constituted by two or three gazetted officers but in the case of Class IV employees it is laid down that where it was considered appropriate, the enquiry committee could consist of two senior subordinates. The plea which has been accepted by the two courts belows is that the one man enquiry committee could not have been constituted and on the basis of its report, no order of removal could be passed. 3. The plea which has been accepted by the two courts belows is that the one man enquiry committee could not have been constituted and on the basis of its report, no order of removal could be passed. 3. Sri Lal Ji Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that these rules are merely for guidance and any violation thereof should firstly be raised before the enquiry committee itself and secondly even if there is non-observance of the rule, it does not invalidate the entire proceedings and these rules are not mandatory. According to him, when the rule itself says that the committee may consist of two senior subordinate itself shows that there is a lot of discretion left with the authorities in the matter of appointment of enquiry committee. can not agree to this submission. 4. The relevant portion of the rule, as it existed at the relevant time, is quoted below : - "42. Constitution. - (a) A departmental enquiry Committee should normally consist of two or three gazetted officers. There is, however, no objection to a single officer being nominated to hold the departmental inquiry in circumstances warranting such a course. In the case of Class IV staff, however, where it is considered appropriate, the inquiry committee may consist of two senior subordinates. (b)....... (c)........ (d)........ (e)........ 5. According to the Rule, normally the enquiry committee should consist of two or three gazetted officers but in special circumstances even a single officer can be nominated to hold the enquiry. It is significant to note here that this part of the Rule speaks of officers who can be entrusted with the enquiry. The term officer has not been defined in Discipline and Appeal Rules for Non-gazetted Railway Servants framed by the Northern Railway. However, Chapter of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume deals with classification of Railway services and whether the word officer has been used, it is always in relation to a gazetted officer. In the Discipline and Appeal Rules Class III and IV non-gazetted employees have been designated as staff and the terms senior subordinate or senior supervisearc these non-gazetted officers who are placed in Class III having a certain higher scale of pay. According to the Rule, at least two gazetted officers must constitute an enquiry. In the Discipline and Appeal Rules Class III and IV non-gazetted employees have been designated as staff and the terms senior subordinate or senior supervisearc these non-gazetted officers who are placed in Class III having a certain higher scale of pay. According to the Rule, at least two gazetted officers must constitute an enquiry. In exceptional circumstances for which there must be some recorded reasons, it can also be entrusted to a single officer. An alternative has been left in the case of Class IV staff and a departmental enquiry committee against him may consist of two senior subordinates, but this course is available only when in place of one or more gazetted officer, two senior subordinates are directed to hold the enquiry. The word may in the second paragraph perhaps indicates that in place of one gazetted officer, two senior subordinates may be substituted for holding the enquiry. A perusal of the rule, therefore, clearly show that there could be no enquiry committee even against a Class IV staff of less than two senior subordinates. In this case, admittedly, the enquiry was entrusted to only one senior subordinate which is clearly against the letter and spirit of the Rules. An amendment to this Rule has been made from January, 1959 but at the relevant time, the position being as already referred to above, the enquiry committee can not be held to be validly constituted. 6. In spite of considerable scope for flexibility in constituting the enquiry committee of one, two or three gazetted officers, a further dilation that has been made in the case of Class IV employees can not be allowed to be watered down further so as to be constituted by only a single senior subordinate. This is entirely foreign to the spirit of the said Rule and there appears to b.T a reasonable basis for it. When two officers constitute an enquiry committee, there is always a possibility that each of them can counter-balance the prejudices of the other, if any. It can not, therefore, be said that if no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the employee, a mere violation of this nature in constituting an enquiry committee would not be fatal. When two officers constitute an enquiry committee, there is always a possibility that each of them can counter-balance the prejudices of the other, if any. It can not, therefore, be said that if no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the employee, a mere violation of this nature in constituting an enquiry committee would not be fatal. The limits within which the constitution of enquiry committee can take place is three Gazetted Officers or two or only in the case of Class IV employees at least two Senior subordinates. It is not dispute t that the Loco Inspector is a senior subordinate but then the very constitution of the enquiry committee was not complete unless it has one more senior subordinate on it. 7. Vigorous effort was made by Sri Sinha to urge that the failure to object about the constitution of the committee at the earlier stage amounts to submission to the jurisdiction of the committee and by conduct the employee must be deemed to have acquiesced to its legality. This again does not appear to be the correct position. It is true that normally the question about the legality of the enquiry committee must be raised at the early stage, but we can not shut our eyes to the fact that class IV employees are usually illiterates as in this case, and may not be in a position to really understand the legal position. Much heavier duty is, therefore, cast on the Railway Administration to strictly adhere to the Rules, regarding Constitution of the enquiry committee, and all other procedures laid down in this behalf by the Rules. It is true that Rules are made basically for the guidance of the authorities and every minor infraction thereof cannot result in invalidating the whole proceeding. However, it can not mean that the authorities can be permitted to violate even the fundamentals of those Ruks. Sri Sinha has heavily relied on. (1) Where the court was seized of a similar matter while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In that case, although the enquiry had been conducted by an authority which was not competent to hold it, yet the order of termination was passed by an authority who was competent to do so. (1) Where the court was seized of a similar matter while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In that case, although the enquiry had been conducted by an authority which was not competent to hold it, yet the order of termination was passed by an authority who was competent to do so. While recusing to interview, the court was of the view that this defect in that enquiry was merely an irregularity and since an objection to this effect had not been raised by the employee before the order of termination was passed, he must be deemed to have acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the enquiry committee. It is urged that in this case also precisely the same situation arises and the invalidity in the constitution of the enquiry committee must be held to be a mere irregularity not affecting the merit of removal of order. find it difficult to agree to this submission. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, the court exercises an extraordinary jurisdiction and it has the discretion whether or not to grant a relief in particular case, not so in a regular civil suit. When this question, was raised and it has been found that the constitution of the enquiry committee in fact was not in accordance with Rule 42, it can not be regarded as a mere irregularity. The constitution of the committee goes to the very root of the matter and cannot be allowed to be violated by the Administration. 8. Without entering into any other questions raised, the appeal can be decided on this question alone. In my opinion, the courts below were right in holding that the very constitution of the Enquiry Committee was invalid and as such any subsequent proceedings based on it can not be upheld. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, make no order as to costs of this appeal.