BECHAN PRASAD PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Bidapur district Mirzapur. He was serving on that post till 6-5-1976 on which date an order was passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Mirzapur purporting to exercise powers under Rule 9 of the Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 whereby the petitioner was ordered to be put off from duty with immediate effect. THE petitioner is aggrieved by this order. His contention is that order has been passed without jurisdiction or alternatively in the improper exercise of the powers under Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the service conditions of the petitioner who was employed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master are governed by the aforesaid rules.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in the above contention. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it has been stated by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Allahabad that prior to the passing of the impugned order a complaint, a true copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit, was received by the authorities on 3-5-1976 in which it was stated that the petitioner was in the habit of misappropriating money orders and insured letters and gave out the amount of the money orders on interest to others and that when a complaint was made the said amounts were shown to have been distributed by him several months after the receipt of the same. Another allegation was that the complainant sent an insured letter on 18-3-1976 for a sum of Rs. 350/-and the said letter contained the aforesaid amount and the same was not handed over to the addressee inspite of the fact that the insured letter had been received in the post office. This complaint is dated 3-5-1976. In paragraph 13 of the aforeseid counter affidavit it has further been asserted that it was not correct that the charge contained in the formal charge sheet served on the petitioner on 6-5-76, referred to hereinabove, was the sole ground for taking action against the petitioner under Rule 9. It is stated that there were other complaints too containing allegations of misconduct against the petitioner.