Extra-departmental agents are not members of a Civil Service or the holders of a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution.

DAS, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order of dismissal of the petitioner, dated 27-11-54. The petitioner's case was that he was appointed on 7-9-25 as an extra-departmental branch post-master of golabando. in Berhampur Division by the opposite party on a monthly salary of Rs. 25/ -. On 24-2-54 the Superintendent of Post Offices, Berhampur Division, issued a letter to the petitioner to the effect that it was reported that he was indulging in politics, especially pro-Andhra activities which are against the Government Servants' conduct Rules, and he was asked to explain within five days from the receipt of the letter as to why drastic action should not be taken against him. The petitioner duly submitted his reply on 1-3-54 pleading absolute innocence. On 13-3-54 a warning was issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Berhampur division, to the petitioner in the following terms: "you should remain aloof from politics, especially pro-Andhra activities, which are against the Government Servants' Conduct Rules, else there is no other alternative but to remove you from the charge of the office. " thereafter all of a sudden, the petitioner was ordered on 27-11-54 to make over charge of his office to one Sri Adikanda Patrd, Head-master, Board Elementary school, the same afternoon. On 6-12-54, the petitioner received orders from the opposite party that his services as extra departmental branch post-master, golabando, were dispensed with, with effect from 27-11-54 afternoon under Rule 2 (iii) of Schedule I-B of Posts and Telegraphs Manual, Vol. III. The petitioner, thereupon, preferred an appeal to the Director of Posts and telegraphs, Cuttack, which was rejected on 17-1-1955. It is alleged that the opposite party No. 1 never made any enquiry regarding the alleged activities of the petitioner and that the notice given to the petitioner on 24-2-54 was too vague and baseless. Further, subsequent to 13-3-54, no fresh charges were made against the petitioner, nor was he called upon to explain his misconduct, if any, but his services were all of a sudden dispensed with without assigning any reason whatsoever. The removal of the petitioner is thus arbitrary and without any proof, much less arty material on record of which notice was given to the petitioner for his explanation. It is complained that at no stage any reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain his doubtful character or his unsatisfactory work for which his services are said to have been dispensed with. Thus, the mandatory provisions of article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India are violated, and the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus against the opposite party.

( 2 ) THE opposite party filed a counter-affidavit to the above petition and averred that the petitioner was only a temporary part-time employee under the government receiving no regular salary, but only an allowance per mensem and as such his services could be terminated at any time without notice or any other formalities which could attract Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The petitioner no doubt was employed as an extra-departmental agent from 7-925 to 27-11-54, but he does not come under R. 3 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Those services were clearly and definitely excluded from the operation of the said Rules. Thus, the extradepartmental agents along with certain other temporary employees of the department are wholly excluded from the operation of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules as specifically stated in para 4 of chapter 1 of the Manual of Appointments and Allowances of Officers of the Posts and Telegraphs Department. With regard to the facts alleged in the petition, it was averred that on receiving reports that the petitioner was indulging in political activities conducive to communal disturbances, which are against the Government Servants' Conduct rules,