The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conduct leading to a government servant's conviction must constitute misconduct as per the service rules for the dismissal under R.19 (i) to be valid.

1. The petitioner in this Original Petition, who was a postman in the Posts and Telegraphs department from 1961 onwards was dismissed from service under R.19 (i) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short, the Rules) consequent on his conviction on a criminal charge. The question that arises for consideration is whether the conduct which has led to his conviction should be a conduct in the course of his employment to attract R.19 (i) of the Rules. The petitioner joined the Posts and Telegraphs department as a messenger in the year 1951 and from 1961 onwards he was working as a permanent postman. The 1st respondent Senior Superintendent of Post Offices; Ernakulam Division by Ext. P-1 order dated 1-5-1971 removed the petitioner from service with effect from 30 41971. Ext. P-1 was issued by the 1st respondent in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by R.19 (i) of the Rules because the petitioner was convicted on a criminal charge under S.323, Indian Penal Code. Against Ext P-1 the petitioner filed an appeal on 10-8-1971 to the 2nd respondent-Post Master General, Trivandrum. The petitioner was informed later that the 3rd respondent - Director of Postal Services, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum is the proper authority before whom the appeal was to be filed, and the appeal was submitted to the 3rd respondent on 13-10-1971. The 3rd respondent by Ext. P-4 memo dated 26-4-1973 dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The petitioner questions Exts. P-1 and P-4 in this original petition.

2. The petitioner was removed from service by Ext. P-1 order because of his conviction on a criminal charge. The charge against him which led to his conviction was that on 21-6-1967 at about 6-30 p. m. the petitioner along with his sister and her husband trespassed into the court-yard of the house of his step-brother situated within 50 ft. of his house and beat him causing several injuries. His step-brother was coming to his own house with a jack fruit and he then noticed the petitioner's sister passing stool in a ditch close to his own house. A quarrel arose when the step-brother questioned the petitioner's sister about her improper act. Blows were exchanged and the step-brother was injured. A case was charged against the petitioner and his sister and her husband. The Additional First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam convicted the petition t under S.326, I. P. C., and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Against the above conviction and sentence the petitioner and the other accused went in appeal and the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam by Ext. P-2 judgment set aside the conviction under S.326, I.P.C., and convicted the petitioner and the other accused under S.323, I. P. C., and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It was after Ext. P-2 judgment that the Ist respondent issued Ext. P-1 order removing the petitioner from service with effect from 30-4-1971.

3. The main contention taken in the original petition is that the respondents were hyper technical and they did not consider the petitioner's appeal on merits. The delay in filing the appeal has also been explained in the original petition. The stand taken by the petitioner is that the criminal case arose out of a family scuffle and it was not something which happened in the course of his employment.

4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the 1st respondent. The statement in Para.5 of the counter-affidavit is that Ext. P-1 removal order was under R.19 (1) of the Rules and hence it is not correct to say that the order was on the basis of the conviction itself. The appeal of the petitioner was time-barred. The action against the petitioner was taken only after the petitioner's appeal was disposed of by the Sessions Judge by Ext. P-2 order. Not only that the appeal was time-barred but no reasons were given in the appeal for the delay