S. Venkateswarlu vs Superintendent of Post Offices, Kurnool

Chennakesav Reddy

One Sri J. Sriramulu, Extra-departmental Branch Post Master, Bandimadugual A/W Pendekallu Sub-Office, was removed from service with effect from 30-12-1972. The petitioner was appointed as Extra-departmental Branch Post Master, in that vacancy, on 25-1-74 by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kurnool Division. In the order of appointment it was specifically stated that the appointment of the petitioner shall be in the nature of a contract, liable to be terminated by him or by the appointing authority by notifying the other in writing and that the petitioner shall also be governed by the Posts and Telegraphs Extra-Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) J. Sriramulu questions the order of removal in W.P. No. 3888/76 before this Court. This court allowed the writ petition. In pursuance of the orders of this Court in the said Writ Petition, Sriramulu, the ex-branch Post Master was reappointed as Branch Post Master, Bandimandugula. Consequently the services of the petitioner were terminated. In accordance with the directions of the High Court in W.P. No. 3888/76, departmental action was continued against Sriramulu and he was again removed from service. On 2-1-78 Sriramulu was directed to hand over charge of the office of Branch Post Master, Bandimadugula to the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner took over charge as Branch Post Master of Bandimadugula on 2-1-78. It appears Sriramulu filed a review petition before the Post Master General, Andhra Circle, Hyderabad under Rule 16 of the Rules and the Review petition was allowed and the order of removal of J. Sriramulu was set aside by the order dated 5-2-79 and he was re-appointed as Branch Post Master, Bandimadugula. Consequently, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Kurnool Division, by Memo dated 6-2-79 directed the petitioner to hand-over charge of the office of the Branch Post Master, Bondimadugula to J. Sriramulu. It is this order of the Superintendent of Post Offices. Kurnool Division, that is sought to be interdicted in this Writ Petition. The petitioner alleges that the post of an extra-departmental Branch Post Master is a Civil Post and that the termination of his service without any notice to him is contrary to the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. In the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Post Master General on behalf of the respondent it is stated that the termination of the appointment of the petitioner was under Rule 6 of the Rules and that the petitioner, who has not rendered more than three years of service, was liable to be terminated by the appointing authority without any notice and without assigning any reasons under Rule 6. It is also stated in the counter that the appointment of the petitioner made on 25-1-74 was terminated on 2-7-77 consequent to the orders of the High Court in W.P. No. 3888/76 and J. Sriramulu was appointed as Extra-departmental Branch Post Master Bandimadugula and as such the petitioner ceased to hold the post on 16-7-77 itself. The petitioner was again appointed, according to the respondent, on 2-1-78 in the place of J. Sriramulu purely on temporary basis pending regular selection to the post and pending the disposal of the appeal petition that was referred against the order of removal dated 26-12-77 by the said J. Sriramulu, In such circumstances it is stated that the original appointment dated 25-1 74 was no longer in existence and the petitioner was not entitled to any notice in writing before any order of termination was passed. In substance it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner was appointed as E.D.B.P.M. on 2-1-78 only on temporary and ad hoc basis in the place of Sriramulu and therefore his services can be terminated without notice assigning any reasons under Rule 6 of the Rules.

It is now well-settled that the post of an extra-departmental Agent such as the extra-departmental Branch Post Master is a Civil Post under the Union of India as contemplated by Article 311 of the Constitution and such an extra-departmental Agent is entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution (Vide The Superintendent of Post Offices and Others Vs. P.K. Rajamma, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner, who was appointed purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis on 2-1-78 in the place of J. Sriramulu, was removed under Rule 6 of the Rules. So the question is whether (sic) removal of the petitioner under Rule 6 of the Rules is illegal.

Rule 6 reads as follows: --

Termination of services:--The services of an employee who have not already rendered more than three years continuous service from the date of his appointment shall be liable to termination by the appointing authority at any time without notice for generally unsatisfactory work or on any administrative ground unconnected with his conduct.

The first and foremost requisite to attract the provisions of Rule 6 is that an employee should have put in less than three years of continuous service. Such an employee can be removed under the Rules at any time without notice and without assigning any reasons on two grounds (1) for generally unsatisfactorily work, or (2) on any administrative ground unconnected with his conduct. But it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is governed by Rule 6, but the conditions contained in the order of appointment dated 25-1-74. According to the learned counsel under the said order of appointment, the petitioner is entitled to prior notice before the termination of his employment. On the other band, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the said order was terminated on 2-7-77 in pursuance of the order of this Court in W.P.No.3888/76 and when J. Sriramulu was reinstated as E.D.B.P.M. of Bandimadugula and that the petitioner ceased to hold post on 2-7-77. It is urged by the learned standing counsel Sri. Subrahmanya Reddy that the appointment of the petitioner again on 2-1-78 was purely temporary and on an ad-hoc basis in the place of Sriramulu and therefore his services can be terminated without any notice or without assigning any reasons. He submits that the order of appointment dated 25-1-74 was dead when the petitioner ceased to hold office on 2-7-77 and the Ex-Branch Post Master J. Sriramulu took charge also drew my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in B.N. Tiwari Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, In that case the Supreme Court was considering whether the Carry Forward Rule of 1952 which was substituted by the Carry Forward Rule of 1955, could be held to revive when the Carry Forward Rule of 1955 was struck down. The Supreme Court observed;

The Carry Forward Rule of 1952 was substituting the Carry Forward rule of 1955. On the substitute on by the Carry Forward Rule of 1952 clearly ceased to exist because its place was taken by the Carry Forward Rule of 1955. Thus by promulgating the new Carry Forward Rule in 1955, the Government of India itself cancelled the Garry Forward Rule of 1952. When therefore this court struck down the Carry forward Rule as modified in 1955 that did not mean that the Carry Forward Rule of 1952 which had already ceased to exist, because the Government of India itself cancelled it and had substituted a modified rule in 1955 in its place, could revive.

To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Bishan Sarup Gupta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, Therefore, applying the said principle, when once the appointment of the petitioner made on 25-1-74 was terminated on 2-7-77 and Sriramulu, the ex-Branch Post Master was appointed in the place of the petitioner as E.D.B.P.M. of Bandimadugula, and the petitioner was reappointed again 2-1-78, it must be held that the first appointment of the petitioner on 25-1-74 was superceded and was dead and could not be reviewed. The petitioner was only governed by the ad hoc order made on 2-1-78. When so held, the petitioner had put in less than three years of continuous service from the date of his appointment on 2-1-78 and could be terminated on 6-2-79 under Rule 6 without assigning any reasons by the impugned order. The grievance of the petitioner is therefore devoid of any substance. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.