V SUBBARAYALU Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICESTANJORE DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in this petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed to act as the Branch Postmaster, Kilayur, Nagapattinam, with effect from 6-2-1949 by the Superetendient of Post Offices, East Tanjore Division. On 12-10-1955, the Inspector of Post Offices, Nagapattinam, issued an order that: "pending further enquiries into the complaint of alleged non-payment of a money order payable to Smt. Jaithoon Bivi, Kilayur, Sri V. Subbarayalu, BPM is temporarily kept out of employment with effect from the afternoon of the 12th October 1955." The petitioner claims that he repudiated the suggestion that he was responsible for the non-payment of the money order and demanded an enquiry. No enquiry was however held. He corresponded with the Inspector of Post Offices and was informed by that officer that the matter had been referred to the Superintendent of Post Offices, East Tanjore Division, and that he would be communicated with in due course. But, immediately upon this letter, an order was received by him from the Superintendent of Post Offices, East Tanjore Division, removing him from service as Branch Postmaster, Kilayur, under the powers vested in him by the Schedule of Administrative powers of the officers of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department He preferred an appeal to the Postmaster-General Madras Circle. It appears that that appeal was rejected and orders rejecting the appeal received by the petitioner after filing of this petition under Article 226.

(3.) The petitioner attacks the order removing! him from service as illegal and without jurisdiction. He claims that no charge was framed against him and no enquiry held. He claims further that he had been employed in the Postal Department as a postman of the Head Post Office, Tiruchirapalli, between 1930 and 1943 and that he had an unblemished record of service. It may be mentioned here that the order removing the petitioner purports to have been made on account of unsatisfactory work, during the period of his employment as Branch Postmaster, Kilayur. The petitioner complains that during his service as Branch Postmaster there having been no occasion when his work had been found fault with, this charge of unsatisfactory work, no particulars of which were ever given to him and opportunity afforded to refute that charge, is wholly baseless. He also complains that the departmental rule relying upon which the order of removal was passed is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice.