1. I cannot agree with the view taken by both Courts below that a servant of the Imperial Bank of India holds his office at pleasure and is liable to be dismissed without notice.
2. The view is based on Chellam Aiyar v. Corporation of Madras (1917) 6 L.W. 284, in which case provisions similar to Section 50 of Schedule II of the Imperial Bank of India Act were considered and interpreted in that light.
3. The decision along with others has been fully considered. In Venkateswara Aiyar v. S.M.S. Devasthanam : (1935)69MLJ206 , which I take as my authority for the true position, servants of the Crown hold office during the pleasure of the Crown - not by virtue of any special prerogative of the Crown but because such are the terms of their engagement Shanton v. Smith (1895) A.C. 229. But servants even of a statutory body do not hold office at pleasure merely because the statute provides the body or person by whom they may be dismissed. It is not right to assume that the power of dismissal is a power of summary dismissal.
4. Where no stipulation exists as to notice, a hired servant can be dismissed only on reasonable notice.
5. In my view this suit must be remanded (to the District Munsif, Guntur) for trial on Issues 1 and 2. Costs will abide the result. On Issue 4 I find that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Court-fee paid on second appeal will be refunded.