SURENDRA NATH PAIKRAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition by an Extra -Departmental Branch Post Master challenges the validity of the order of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Puri Division (O.P. No. 2) dated 27th March, 1978 (Annexure -5) terminating his service under Rule 6 of the Posts and Telegraphs Extra -Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

(2.) ON March 8, 1976 the Petitioner was appointed by the opposite party No. 2 as an Extra -Departmental Branch Post Master. On September 28, 1977 he was put off duty in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules "pending investigation into his work and conduct". On March 27, 1978 service of the Petitioner was terminated with effect from the date he was put off duty (vide Annexure -5).

(3.) IN the counter affidavit field on behalf of the opposite parties it is stated that the Petitioner was put off duty by order dated 29 -9 -1977 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules and that the order was issued pending investigation into the work and conduct of the Petitioner. It is also stated that the Petitioner received a money order for Rs. 300/ - payable to one Khali Naik and fraudulently got an endorsement of payment of the money order on 25 -7 -1977 wish a fictitious thumb impression which was not of the payee. There was a detailed enquiry made by the Inspector of Post Offices, Khurda and after the unsatisfactory work of the Petitioner was established the order of termination of his service was issued' under Rule 6 of the Rules. The above statements practically admit the case of the Petitioner that his service was terminated following a complaint about misconduct.