(1) THE only question that falls for consideration in these appeals is whether an Extra Departmental Agent in the Posts and Telegraphs Department of the government of India who was "Put-off Duty" on account of pendency of departmental proceedings against him is entitled to the allowances for the period of "Put-off Duty" on his being exonerated in the departmental proceedings.

(2) THE Extra Departmental Agents system in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is in vogue since 1854. The object underlying it is to cater to postal needs of the rural communities dispersed in remote areas. The system avails of the services of schoolmasters, shopkeepers, landlords and such other persons in a village who have the faculty of reasonable standard of literacy and adequate means of livelihood and who, therefore, in their leisure can assist the Department by way of gainful avocation and social service in ministering to the rural communities in their postal needs, through maintenance of simple accounts and adherence to minimum procedural formalities, as prescribed by the Department for the purpose.

(3) THE Extra Departmental Agents are government servants holding a civil post and are entitled to the protection of Article 311(2 of the Constitution (See: Supdt. of Post Offices v. P.K. Rajamma. They are governed by separate set of rules, viz., the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules are not applicable to this category of employees in view of the notification dated 28/2/1957 issued by the government of India under Rule 3(3 of the said Rules.

(4) IN Rule 4 of the Rules it is provided that the employees shall not be entitled to any pension. Rule 5 relates to leave. Rule 6 deals with the termination of services. Rule 7 prescribes nature of penalties that can be imposed* Rule 8 prescribes the procedure for imposing a penalty. Rule 8-A specifies the cases in which the provisions of Rule 8 would not be applicable. Rule 9 which is the rule relevant for the purpose of these appeals reads as under:

"9. Put-off duty.-(1 Pending an enquiry into any complaint or allegation of misconduct against an employee, the appointing authority or an authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate may put him off duty:

PROVIDED that in cases involving fraud or embezzlement, an employee holding any of the posts specified in the Schedule to these rules may be put off duty by the Inspector of Post Offices, under immediate intimation to the appointing authority.

(2 An order made by the Inspector of Post Offices under sub-rule (1 shall cease to be effective on the expiry of fifteen days from the date thereof unless earlier confirmed or cancelled by the appointing authority or an authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate.

(3 An employee shall not be entitled to any allowance for the period for which he is kept off duty under this rule."

(5) RULE 10 makes provisions for filing of appeal against an order putting an employee off duty. Rules 11 to 15 govern the exercise of the right of appeal. Rule 16 confers the power of review. There are other provisions in the Rules which are not relevant for the present case.

(6) KAMESHWAR Prasad, the respondent in Civil No. 3974 of 1995, was employed as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a charge-sheet was served on him under Rule 8 of the Rules. During the pendency of the said proceedings he was put off duty by order 4/8/1986 from 8/8/1986. In the departmental proceedings he was exonerated of the charges and by order dated 30/9/1989 he was ordered to be reinstated. He joined duty on 26/10/1989. He moved the central Administrative tribunal, Patna bench (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") by filing OA No. 177 of 1991 wherein he claimed wag