POST MASTER Vs. USHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the Post Master, Punalur and the Superintendent of Post Offices. Pathanamthitta, challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge in OP No. 4950 of 1981. The respondent was appointed as an Extra Departmental Stamp Vendor as per Memo dated 6-7-1981 issued by the first appellant in the promotion vacancy of Thyagarajan Pillai. She joined the service and was continuing to discharge the functions of the said post. Thereafter by Ext. P3 Issued by the 2nd appellant, the first appellant was directed to terminate the services of the respondent with immediate effect under R.6 of the Extra Departmental Agents Conduct And Service Rules, and to call for fresh applications to make fresh selection in the light of the instructions issued on the subject. The reason given for such a direction in Ext. P3 is that the 2nd appellant noticed that the test prescribed for making the selection as laid down in P.M.G. Trivandrum letter No. STA/1/28/Reg. dated 29-10-1986 has not been followed and further that the respondent is a near relation of the departmental official working in the same office and that such an action is also contrary to the instructions laid down in Dg. P & T. Letter No. 43/36/64 Pen. dated 17-10-1966. It is also stated that the order of appointment given by the first appellant is not in the prescribed form. The responded challenged this direction contained in Ext. P3 in the writ petition. But during the pendency of the writ petition, the first appellant acting in pursuance of Ext. P3 terminated the services of the respondent by issuing the order Ext. P6 dated 29-9-1981. It is stated therein that the services of the respondent are terminated with immediate effect. By amending the Original Petition, Ext. P6 order was also challenged.

(2.) The learned single Judge has allowed the Original Petition and quashed Ext. P6 and directed the appellants to re-employ the respondent and pay her full salary and other benefits which she would have received had her services not been terminated. It is the said judgment that is challenged in this appeal.

(3.) The power that was exercised for terminating the services of the respondent by the first appellate is under R.6 of the P. & T. Extra Departmental Agents Conduct and Service Rules. The 2nd appellant called upon the first appellant to terminate the services of the respondent in exercise of the power conferred by the said provision. The contention of Sri Madhavan Nambiar, the learned counsel for the appellants, is that all the conditions stipulated under R.6 having been satisfactorily fulfilled, the exercise of the power could not have been interfered with. For the sake of convenience R.6 is extracted below: