Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) The appellant was in September, 1954 employed as an extra departmental agent and posted as Branch Post Master Nahwai at Allahabad on a monthly salary of Rs. 25/- per month. On 13th July, 1959 the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Allahabad Division served upon the appellant a charge-sheet requiring the appellant to furnish his explanation and also requiring him to show cause why in case the charges were establishment he should not be removed from service by way of punishment and a sum of Rs. 2,005/- be directed to be recovered from him. The appellant submitted his explanation on July 30, 1959. On 8th August, 1959 the Superintendent fixed a time, date and place for holding the oral hearing. The appellant, however, did not appear. The Superintendent proceeded to decide the matter on the existing materials. He found the charges established and on 17-10-1959 passed an order removing the appellant from service and also directing that the amount of Rs. 2005/- be recovered from the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal to the Director of Postal Services but it was rejected on 6-1-1961.
(2.) Aggrieved the appellant instituted a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
(3.) Mr. K. P. Agrawal, appearing for the appellant, has submitted before us only one point. He urged that the appellant was holding a civil post under the Union within the meaning of Article 810 of the Constitution. He was hence entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) where under no order of removal from service could validly be passed without affording the appellant an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment. Learned counsel submitted that it was incumbent upon the authorities to have given a notice to the appellant to show cause against the proposed punishment, after the completion of the enquiry into the charges and after the, enquiry officer found the charges established. The appellant could not adequately represent against the proposed punishment until he knew the contents of the findings in regard to the charges. The decision of the Supreme Court in Khem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300 supports the submission. There it was held that after the completion of the enquiry, it was incumbent upon the authorities to give a notice to show cause against the proposed punishment. In this state of the law the combined notice served on insofar as it required the appellant to show cause against the proposed punishment because till then the charges had not been found proved.;