Srinivasan, J.

The question that arises in this petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the protection of Art. 311 of the Constitution. The petitioner was appointed to act as the branch postmaster, Kilayur, Nagapattinam, with effect from 6 February, 1949, by the Superintendent of Post Offices, East Thanjavur Division. On 12 October, 1955, the Inspector of Post Offices, Nagapattinam, issued an order that

"pending further enquiries into the complaint of alleged non-payment of a money order payable to Smt. Jaithoon Bivi, Kilayur, Sri V. Subbarayalu, branch postmaster, is temporarily kept out of employment with effect from the afternoon of 12 October 1955." *

The petitioner claims that he repudiated the suggestion that he was responsible for the non-payment of the money order and demanded an enquiry. No enquiry was however held. He corresponded with the Inspector of Post Offices and was informed by that officer that the matter had been referred to the Superintendent of Post Offices, East Thanjavur Division, and that he would be communicated with in due course. But, immediately upon this letter, and order was received by him from the Superintendent of Post Offices, East Thanjavur Division, removing him from service as branch postmaster, Kilayur, under the power vested in him by the Schedule of Administrative Powers of the Officers of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department. He preferred an appeal to the Postmaster-General, Madras Circle. It appears that appeal was rejected and orders rejecting the appeal received by the petitioner after filing of this petition under Art. 226.

The petitioner attacks the order removing him from service as illegal and without jurisdiction. He claims that no charge was framed against him and no enquiry held. He claims further that he had been employed in the Postal Department as a postman of the head post office, Tiruchirappalli, between 1930 and 1943 and that he had an unblemished record of service. It may be mentioned here that the order removing the petitioner purports to have been made on account of unsatisfactory work, during the period of his employment as branch postmaster, Kilayur. The petitioner complains that during his service as branch postmaster there having been no occasion when his work has been found fault with, this charge of unsatisfactory work, no particulars of which were ever given to him and opportunity afforded to refute that charge, is wholly baseless. He also complains that the departmental rule relying upon which the order of removal was passed is violative of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice.In the counter-affidavit of the respondent, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Nagapattinam, the stand has been taken that the post office in question is only an extra-departmental branch post office, the postmaster of which is only a part-time servant. The respondent disclaims all knowledge of the previous service of the petitioner as postman in Tiruchirappalli Circle between 1930 and 1943. It is stated that during the period he was employed as branch postmaster, Kilayur, there had been several occasions when his work was found to be very unsatisfactory in the years 1952-53 and 1955 and he had in fact been duly warned. A final warning is said to have been issued to him that he would be summarily removed from service in case of complaints in future. It is claimed that there was an enquiry into the alleged non-payment of the money order and that the petitioner was questioned in that regard and his statement recorded on 11 October, 1955. Pending further enquiry, the petitioner was "kept out of employment"; probably the expression is used as synonymous with "kept under suspension." It is stated that the petitioner asked for no further enquiry at that stage. In the course of the enquiry, however, irregularities in the discharge of his duties came to notice. No action was thereupon taken in respect of the allegation of the non-delive