S.N. Shankar, C.J. - (1.)ON May 19, 1956 the Petitioner was appointed as an extra -departmental branch postmaster by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack South Division. On December 12, 1971 he was put off duty pending enquiry into certain allegations of misconduct. On June 17, 1972 charges were communicated to him in reply to which he submitted his representation. On October 19, 1972 the enquiry officer held that the charges were not made out and directed his immediate reinstatement. This order of reinstatement was, however, not given effect to in spite of several representations by the Petitioner. He was at first asked to furnish documentary evidence in support of his unencumbered income which be did, but then he was requested to furnish a solvency' certificate which also he did, but with no result. On December 7, 1973 he was again served with charges (If misconduct. The Petitioner filed his representation against these charges. On April 24, 1974 without any enquiry of second show -cause notice he was removed from service. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner has assailed this order of removal.
(2.)THE main ground can passed in support of the petition is that the Petitioner held a civil post and could not therefore be removed from service without employing with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. The position is controverted by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties.
The question whether the Petitioner held a civil post or not is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the Bench decision of this Court in Nabaghan Sahu v. Election Officer, Mukundapur G.P., 37 (1971) C.L.T. 221. This case related to the nature of post held by an extra departmental agent in a branch post office. It was held that the post was an office of profit under the Central Government. "Extra Departmental Agent" according to Rule 2(b) of the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 (hereafter called the Rules) includes an extra departmental branch postmaster also. The Petitioner's case is thus squarely covered by this decision. In arriving at this conclusion this Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 884. The Bench decision was followed in this Court in Natabar Hati v. Block Development Officer, Balikuda and Ors. O.J.C. No. 1334 of 1975, as also in Purushottam Das v. Superintendent of Post Offices, Berhampur Division and Ors. O.J.C. No. 625 of 1971. In the latter case the Petitioner was an extra departmental branch postmaster and the order impugned by him was the order removing him from service as in the case in hand. The view taken by this Court in the aforesaid cases is binding on us and we respectfully agree with the same.

(3.)THE learned Counsel for the opposite parties strongly urged that the view needs reconsideration. He referred us to Subbarayalu v. Superintendent, Post Offices : A.I.R. 1961 Mad 166, where the Petitioner, an extra departmental branch postmaster, was held not to be holding a civil post. This decision was made prior to the law settled by the Supreme Court in State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 884 followed by this Court in the Bench decision of Nabaghan Sahu (aforesaid). This decision of the Madras High Court was also cited before the Kerala High Court in Inspector of Post Offices v. Subhas Chandra Das : 1971 K.L.J. 815, (where the order terminating the services of an extra departmental delivery agent (a postman) had been assailed) in support of the plea that the post was not a civil post, but the learned Judges of the Court found it difficult to accept the conclusion in the Madras judgment in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanak Chandra's case : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 884. Our attention was also drawn to an earlier decision of this Court in Venkata Swamy v. Superintendent. Post Offices : A.I.R 1957 Ori 112, where a contrary view had been taken. But this decision was explicitly dissented from in the Bench decision in Nabaghan Sahu v. Election Officer, Mukundapur G.P., 37 (1971) C.L.T. 221. We do not think that the matter needs to be reopened.