The main legal point established in the judgment is that even in administrative dismissals, a quasi-judicial approach is required, and the absence of reasons for the dismissal can vitiate the exercise of quasi-judicial power.

1. This writ petition seeks to vacate the order terminating the petitioner's tenure, who, till July 1, 1952, was the non-departmental branch Post Master at Erumapramattom, Erattupetta, Meenachil Taluk. By the order of the Inspector of Post Offices, Kottayam, he was temporarily removed from the service, pending inquiry into the failure to credit in the accounts the value of V.P. Articles, and criminal prosecution was also launched against him in connection with the aforesaid failures to credit the value. The First Class Magistrate, Meenachil, inquired into the complaints against him for the offence under S.409 I.P.C., the criminal case before the aforesaid Magistrate being C.C. No. 79/53. After examining the prosecution witnesses) the Magistrate, on November 29,1957, ordered petitioner's discharge under S.253 (1), Criminal P. C., and, on April 2,1958, the writ petitioner requested the postal authorities for re-employment. He sent a reminder, 22 days later, and the reply, he received on April 28, 1958, was that the question of his reinstatement was under consideration. No further communication was received till October 23, 1958, when the writ petitioner received a memo dismissing him. As the petitioner's Advocate has attacked the form, in which the document had been written, we would quote it in extenso. It has been produced as Ext. P7, and reads thus:

"Shri P. J. Joseph, Extra-departmental Branch Postmaster, Erumapramattom, who is out of duty from 1-7-1952, is hereby removed from service for unsatisfactory work". It is common ground that no appeal was filed before the appellate authority, and the petitioner filed this writ petition on December 12,1958.

2. The grounds, on which the petitioner's Advocate seeks to vacate the order, may be summarised under three heads. These are that:

(1) The notice under Art.311 (2) has not been given, and the failure makes the order illegal; that

(2) The dismissing authority was discharging quasi-judicial functions, and failure to afford the petitioner reasonable opportunity of meeting the case against him, violates the principles of natural justice; and that

(3) The dismissal order assigns no reason for the conclusion of the petitioner's work being unsatisfactory, arbitrarily takes away the right of appeal, and should be vacated.

3. The reply to the aforesaid objections is that, as the writ petitioner does not belong to the Post Office service, he was not a public servant, and, therefore, Art.311 would not apply. The next challenge is met by relying on the Rules which provided that where an agent is being removed because of his work being not satisfactory, he need not be given notice of the proposed punishment. The reply to the last argument is that the function when dismissing the petitioner, is administrative, and not quasi-judicial; with the result that failure to assign reasons for the order, would not be fatal to its legality, nor the error can be made a ground for invoking this Court's powers under Art.226. The learned judge hearing the writ petition, considered the question of petitioner's being a member of the public services to be of sufficient importance and has referred the case to the Division Bench.

4. The petitioner's learned advocate has accepted the Postmaster General, in exercise of his legal powers having framed certain Rules concerning extra departmental agents, which governed the petitioner's employment, and are to be found in the Posts and Telegraphs Manual, Volume III, p. 44. For purposes of our decision, the relevant Rules read as follows:

"2. Penalties:- The following penalties only may, for good and sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon these employees, namely:

[i] Recovery from allowance of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of rules,

[ii] Removal or dismissal from service for some specific offence, such as participation in fraud, etc., and

[iii] Removal from service for unsatisfactory work o