Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as an Extra Departmental Postal Mail Runner on 6 71960 in the Kulathoor Post Office. He was functioning as such till 31-8-1960. On that day he was discharged from the post of Mail Runner. Subsequently he was appointed as an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent when a vacancy arose and continued in that capacity till his services were terminated by an order dated 2111963, Ext. P-3. That order is in these terms: "Under R.6 of the P. & T. E. D. Agents (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1959, the services of Shri. T. C. Govindan, Extra Departmental Delivery Agent, Kulathoor are hereby terminated with immediate effect." 2. In an appeal to the second respondent, the Superintendent of Post Offices, an order Ext. P-5 was passed stating that there is no reason to cancel the order Ext. P-3. There was a further appeal to the Director of Posts and Telegraphs, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum. That appeal too was dismissed as seen from Ext. P-9 order. The petitioner took a further appeal before the Post Master General, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum and since no orders have been passed by the Post Master General, this Court has been approached by this writ application. 3. According to the petitioner, the action taken against him is punitive and is the imposition of punishment amounting to dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of Art.311 (2) of the Constitution and in so far as no reasonable opportunity was granted to the petitioner to state his case, the orders Exts. P-3, P-5 and P-9 cannot be sustained and should be quashed. 4. R.6 of the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1959 is in these terms: "The service of an employee shall be liable to termination by the appointing authority at any time without notice for generally unsatisfactory work within three years from the date of appointment or any administrative ground unconnected with his conduct." 5. This is the Rule that is referred to in Ext. P-3 and it is the case of the respondents that the appointing authority has power to terminate the services of an Extra Departmental Agent at any time and that such termination is not justiciable. 6. The question to be determined is what is the true nature of the action that has been taken against the petitioner. P-3 and it is the case of the respondents that the appointing authority has power to terminate the services of an Extra Departmental Agent at any time and that such termination is not justiciable. 6. The question to be determined is what is the true nature of the action that has been taken against the petitioner. It is the substance and not the form that must be taken into account has been ruled by the Supreme Court in all the three decisions that have been referred to by counsel in this case. Those are in Madan Gopal v. The State of Punjab and others reported in 1963 SC. 531, in Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India and 1964 SC. 449 in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. The Union of India reported in 1964 SC. 1854. 7. Certain principles are deducible from these pronouncements. When a court is satisfied that the action taken against an employes is really by way of a punishment, not a mere termination of services according to service conditions, the provision in Art.311 (2) will be attracted. It does not matter whether the employee is a permanent employee or a temporary employee. The fact that an enquiry was conducted which is in the nature of a preliminary enquiry, for the purpose of determining whether a formal enquiry should be undertaken or whether action should be taken pursuant to Rules similar to R.6, that I have already read, is not sufficient by itself to come to the conclusion that a punishment has been imposed. The form of the order by which the services were terminated or the words used in the order are not conclusive and the real substance must be ascertained. 8. In the light of those principles the facts of the case have to be scrutinised. There was a complaint against the petitioner which is evidenced by Ext. PI. It contains allegations of a very serious nature. Those allegations do not pertain to 'generally unsatisfactory work' but with reference to a specific misconduct' alleged against the petitioner. An investigation pursuant to this complaint was admittedly undertaken. After the investigation the following communication (Ext. P2) was sent to the complainant. "No. CR./F2/684/63 dated at Quilon the 31st Oct. 1963. Sub: Allegation against Postman Sri T. C. Govindan. Ref: Your letter dated 219 1963. An investigation pursuant to this complaint was admittedly undertaken. After the investigation the following communication (Ext. P2) was sent to the complainant. "No. CR./F2/684/63 dated at Quilon the 31st Oct. 1963. Sub: Allegation against Postman Sri T. C. Govindan. Ref: Your letter dated 219 1963. Sir, Enquiries made into the case by Inspector of Post Thiruvalla show that there is no conclusive evidence to prove that you had enquired for letters on 19 91963. Suitable action will be taken against the postman and the B. P. M. for the incorrect remark noted on the registered letter to avoid a recurrence in future. The inconvenience caused to you is regretted". 9. Though the order Ext. P3 by itself is innocent when it is read with Ext. P2 there is no gainsaying that there is a stigma attached to the petitioner. It is stated in Ext. P2, that suitable action will be taken against the postman and the 'B. P. M.' for the incorrect remark noted on the registered letter to avoid a recurrence in future. Though the order Ext. P3 refers only to R.6 and merely states that the services of the petitioner are terminated it is clear that the action of termination was for the incorrect remark said to be noted on the registered letter. I think that the action taken against the petitioner was really an imposition of punishment and that there is a stigma attached to the petitioner. It follows that the order Ext. P3 cannot stand. 10. The decision of this Court in P. J. Joseph v. Superintendent of Post Offices reported in 1960 KLT.1304 states that in cases of this nature it is necessary that reasons should be stated. This order Ext. P3 does not even state that the services of the petitioner have been terminated for 'generally unsatisfactory work'. The fact that no reason has been stated is also a defect and on the principle laid down in the decision in P. J. Joseph v. Superintendent of Post offices reported in 1960 KLT.1304 would be sufficient to have the order set aside. 11. For the reasons stated above, I quash Exts. P3, P5 and P9 and allow this writ petition. The respondents will employ the petitioner in any vacancy that may arise in future in the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent in any of the post offices in the State. 11. For the reasons stated above, I quash Exts. P3, P5 and P9 and allow this writ petition. The respondents will employ the petitioner in any vacancy that may arise in future in the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent in any of the post offices in the State. There will be no order as to costs. Dismissed.