A. N. Varma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Bidapur district Mirzapur. He was serving on that post till 6-5-1976 on which date an order was passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Mirzapur purporting to exercise powers under Rule 9 of the Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 whereby the petitioner was ordered to be put off from duty with immediate effect. THE petitioner is aggrieved by this order. His contention is that order has been passed without jurisdiction or alternatively in the improper exercise of the powers under Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules.
(2.) IT is not disputed that the service conditions of the petitioner who was employed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master are governed by the aforesaid rules. Rule 9, under which the impugned order has been passed, provides : "An employee shall be liable to be put off from duty by or under the orders of the appointing authority to which it is subordinate pending enquiry into any complaint or allegation or misconduct against him. During such period, he will not be entitled to any allowance". The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 6-5-1976 when the impugned order was passed no enquiry into any allegation of misconduct was pending against him. It was urged that on 6-5-1976 a charge sheet was served on the petitioner in which the sole allegation was that the petitioner while working as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master participated in the election of Nyaya Panchayat and was elected as Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat without any information to the department or its approval. Consequently it was proposed to take action against the petitioner for violation of the service rules mentioned above. Learned counsel submitted that the charge framed against the petitioner does not involve any act of misconduct and consequently Rule 9 was not attracted.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in the above contention. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it has been stated by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Allahabad that prior to the passing of the impugned order a complaint, a true copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit, was received by the authorities on 3-5-1976 in which it was stated that the petitioner was in the habit of misappropriating money orders and insured letters and gave out the amount of the money orders on interest to others and that when a complaint was made the said amounts were shown to have been distributed by him several months after the receipt of the same. Another allegation was that the complainant sent an insured letter on 18-3-1976 for a sum of Rs. 350/-and the said letter contained the aforesaid amount and the same was not handed over to the addressee inspite of the fact that the insured letter had been received in the post office. This complaint is dated 3-5-1976. In paragraph 13 of the aforeseid counter affidavit it has further been asserted that it was not correct that the charge contained in the formal charge sheet served on the petitioner on 6-5-76, referred to hereinabove, was the sole ground for taking action against the petitioner under Rule 9. It is stated that there were other complaints too containing allegations of misconduct against the petitioner. From the averments made in the counter affidavit by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices it appears that the contention of the petitioner is based on erroneous promise that the charge contained in the charge sheet was the sole ground for taking action against the petitioner under Rule 9. We have no reasons to doubt the correctness of the assertions made by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices against whom no malafides have been alleged, when he says that the impugned order under Rule 9 was passed on the basis of a complaint containing allegations of misconduct.;