E KUNHIRAMAN NAIR Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was provisionally appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master at Kunnathur Branch Office within the Cannanore Division. The appointment originally was for a period of four months. But he was again appointed provisionally as Extra Departmental Post Master for another period of three months in continuation of the earlier appointment. There was yet another appointment in continuation of the first two appointments for a period of three months. Such services started from 9-1-1978. While the petitioner was so functioning as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master he was served with a memo dated 23-9-1978 informing him that under R.6 of the Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 the services of the petitioner was being terminated with immediate effect. Ext. P2 is the copy of that order dated 23-9-1978. In the same order it was mentioned that the 3rd respondent was being selected and appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master. Later another memo dated 30-9-1978 was served on the petitioner intimating the petitioner that in the earlier order Ext. P2 after the words "with immediate effect" the words "on administrative grounds" is added. Ext. P3 is that order. Though the petitioner attempted to take up this matter before the Director of Postal Services, Cannanore Division he did not succeed. Ext. P5 is the order on Ext. P4 representation submitted by the petitioner dismissing the representation. Thereupon the petitioner has moved this court.

(2.) The main challenge to the order is that it is not in accordance with R.6 of the Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. It is the complaint of the petitioner that Ext. P2 order is not a speaking order, that Ext. P3 cannot operate to amend Ext. P2 and even if it is assumed otherwise it is still not a speaking order. The ground on which the petitioner's services have been terminated ought to have been indicated without merely referring to administrative ground. That is because it is open to the petitioner to take up the matter before higher authorities by way of effective representation and would be possible only if reason is not indicated in Ext. P2 to the knowledge of the petitioner.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed in this case by respondents 1 and 2. The counter affidavit we may mention at the outset is completely silent about the specific administrative ground which necessitated the termination of the service of the petitioner. In other words, even now what the reason for terminating the services of the petitioner was, has not been disclosed to the Court nor has the relevant files been placed before us. Perhaps it is in line with the stand taken by the Union Government in such matters in this Court in earlier cases where the stand taken was that it is not for the Government to disclose reasons for termination.