SANATAN SAHU Vs. INSPECTOR OF POST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an Extra-Departmental Packer under the Postal Department, falling within the ambit of 'Extra Departmental Agent' as defined in R. 2 (b) (vii) of the Posts and Telegraphs Extra-Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', calls in question the legality of the order dated Oct. 19, 1976 (Annexure-1) passed by the Inspector of Post Offices, Khurda Sub-division, putting him off duty in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding in respect of an allegation of misconduct. The allegation against him was that on Aug. 21, 1976, he received a mail bag, brought out the registered bag from inside which was cut open and got the contents and he scored out the concerned entry in the registered list. Challenge in this writ application has also been made to the disciplinary proceeding on the ground that the charges set out in Annexure 2 are the outcome of ill-will and malice of the opposite party no. 1 towards him. According to the petitioner, Annexure-1 had been passed in violation of and not in accordance with R. 9 of the Rules and this rule prohibiting payment of allowance pending enquiry is invalid.

(2.) In their counter-affidavit, the opposite parties controvert the contentions raised by the petitioner and aver that in view of the serious allegations made against the petitioner, he was put off duty as per Annexure-1 and disciplinary proceeding has been started in accordance with law as per Annexure-2 and both these orders cannot be called in question being in conformity with the Rules.

(3.) At the hearing, Mr. P. V. Ramdas has pressed only for quashing Annexure-1 being in violation of the provisions contained in R. 9, as according to him, there was no pending enquiry when the order was passed. Mr. R. Ch. Mohanty, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, has, however, contended that 'enquiry' within the meaning of R. 9 does not necessarily mean a disciplinary proceeding and brings within its purview any enquiry made prior to it and as an enquiry was pending against the petitioner before the disciplinary proceeding was started, the impugned order cannot be assailed.