P J JOSEPH Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition seeks to vacate the order terminating the petitioners tenure, who, till July I, 1952, was the non departmental branch Post Master at Erumapramattom, Erattupetta, Meenachil Taluk. By the order of the Inspector of Post Offices, Kottayam, he was temporarily removed from the service, pending inquiry into the failure to credit in the accounts the value of V.P. Articles, and criminal prosecution was also launched against him in connection with the aforesaid failures to credit the value. The First Class Magistrate, Meenachil, inquired into the complaints against him for the offence under S.409 I.P.C., the criminal case before the aforesaid Magistrate being C.C. No. 79/53. After examining the prosecution witnesses) the Magistrate, on November 29, 1957, ordered petitioners discharge under S.253 (1), Criminal P. C., and, on April 2, 1958, the writ petitioner requested the postal authorities for re-employment. He sent a reminder, 22 days later, and the reply, he received on April 28, 1958, was that the question of his reinstatement was under consideration. No further communication was received till October 23, 1958, when the writ petitioner received a memo dismissing him. As the petitioners Advocate has attacked the form, in which the document had been written, we would quote it in extenso. It has been produced as Ext. P7, and reads thus:-

(2.) The grounds, on which the petitioners Advocate seeks to vacate the order, may be summarised under three heads. These are that:

(3.) The reply to the aforesaid objections is that, as the writ petitioner does not belong to the Post Office service, he was not a public servant, and, therefore, Art.311 would not apply. The next challenge is met by relying on the Rules which provided that where an agent is being removed because of his work being not satisfactory, he need not be given notice of the proposed punishment. The reply to the last argument is that the function when dismissing the petitioner, is administrative, and not quasi judicial; with the result that failure to assign reasons for the order, would not be fatal to its legality, nor the error can be made a ground for invoking this Courts powers under Art.226. The learned Judge hearing the writ petition, considered the question of petitioners being a member of the public services to be of sufficient importance and has referred the case to the Division Bench.