JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The appellant was in September, 1954 employed as an extra departmental agent and posted as Branch Post Master Nahwai at Allahabad on a monthly salary of Rs. 25/- per month. On 13th July, 1959 the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Allahabad Division served upon the appellant a charge-sheet requiring the appellant to furnish his explanation and also requiring him to show cause why in case the charges were establishment he should not be removed from service by way of punishment and a sum of Rs. 2,005/- be directed to be recovered from him. The appellant submitted his explanation on July 30, 1959. On 8th August, 1959 the Superintendent fixed a time, date and place for holding the oral hearing. The appellant, however, did not appear. The Superintendent proceeded to decide the matter on the existing materials. He found the charges established and on 17-10-1959 passed an order removing the appellant from service and also directing that the amount of Rs. 2005/- be recovered from the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal to the Director of Postal Services but it was rejected on 6-1-1961. 2. Aggrieved the appellant instituted a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 3. Mr. K. P. Agrawal, appearing for the appellant, has submitted before us only one point. He urged that the appellant was holding a civil post under the Union within the meaning of Article 810 of the Constitution. He was hence entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) where under no order of removal from service could validly be passed without affording the appellant an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment. Learned counsel submitted that it was incumbent upon the authorities to have given a notice to the appellant to show cause against the proposed punishment, after the completion of the enquiry into the charges and after the, enquiry officer found the charges established. The appellant could not adequately represent against the proposed punishment until he knew the contents of the findings in regard to the charges. The decision of the Supreme Court in Khem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300 supports the submission. There it was held that after the completion of the enquiry, it was incumbent upon the authorities to give a notice to show cause against the proposed punishment. The decision of the Supreme Court in Khem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300 supports the submission. There it was held that after the completion of the enquiry, it was incumbent upon the authorities to give a notice to show cause against the proposed punishment. In this state of the law the combined notice served on insofar as it required the appellant to show cause against the proposed punishment because till then the charges had not been found proved. 4. Mr. T. N. Sapru, appearing for the respondent, countered the submission by urging that the appellant was not employed on a civil post. He was not the holder of a civil post within meaning of re Article 310 of the Constitution, and so Article 311(2) was not attracted. 5. This very point, namely, whether an extra departmental agent was the holder of civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution came up for consideration before this Court in Mangal Datt Chaube v. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Writ Petition No. 473 of 1968 decided on 21st January 1969. In that case one of us held. "The true connotation of the term "civil post" as used in these Articles was explained by the Supreme Court in State of Assam v. K.C. Datta, AIR 1967 SC 884 . It was observed that a civil post is a post on the civil as distinguished from the defence side of administration; and employment in a civil capacity under the Union or a State. Since civil services of the Union or All India Services or a civil service of a State is mentioned separately in Articles 310 and 311 of the Constitution, a civil post would mean a post not connected with defence outside the regular civil services. A post is a service or employment. A person holding a post under the State is a person serving or holding the post under a State. The heading and the sub-heading of Part XIV and Chapter I emphasise the element of service. There is a relationship of master and servant between the State and the person said to be holding a post under it. A person holding a post under the State is a person serving or holding the post under a State. The heading and the sub-heading of Part XIV and Chapter I emphasise the element of service. There is a relationship of master and servant between the State and the person said to be holding a post under it. It then held :- "The existence of this relationship is indicated by the State's right to select and appoint the holder of the post, its right to suspend and dismiss him, its right to control the manner and method of his doing the work and the payment by it of his wages or remuneration. A relation-ship of master and servant may be established by the presence of all or some of these indicia, in conjunction with other circumstances and it is a question of fact in each case whether there is such a relation between the State and the alleged holder of a point." The Court then went on to hold that a post is an office or a position to which duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached; an office or a position to which a person is appointed, and, which may exist apart from and independently of the holder of the post. A post may be created before the appointment or simultaneously with it. A post under the State means a post under the administrative control of the State. The State may create or abolish the post and may regulate the conditions of service of person appointed to the post. It was also observed by the Supreme Court that the fact that the post does not carry a definite rate of pay but carries a remuneration by way of a commission, or the fact that the post may not entail a whole-time employment, would not detract from the employment being to a civil post. 6. Judged in the light of these principles, an Extra Departmental Agent would, in my opinion be the holder of a civil post. These Agents are governed by the rules called the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964, framed by the Government. Under it an employee has been defined to mean a person employed as an Extra Departmental Agent. Such an agent means 17 kinds of posts including an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master. These Agents are governed by the rules called the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964, framed by the Government. Under it an employee has been defined to mean a person employed as an Extra Departmental Agent. Such an agent means 17 kinds of posts including an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master. The petitioner was appointed to this post. Under Rule 3 the appointing authority in respect of each category of employees is as shown in the Schedule annexed to the Rules. Under Rule 5 the employee shall be entitled to such leave as may be determined by the Government from time to time. Rule 6 deals with termination of service of such an employee. Under Rule 7 penalties including removal from "service" and dismissal from "service" can be imposed on an employee for good and sufficient reasons. Rule 8 prescribes the procedure for imposing penalties. The employee is entitled to appeal against an order imposing penalty to the authority to which the authority imposing the penalty is immediately subordinate. Rule 17 prescribes that every employee shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. Under Rule 18 an employee is forbidden to be a member of, or associated with any political party or from taking part in any political movement or activity. Rule 19 prohibits an employee from resorting to any sort of strike in relation to his conditions of "service". Under Rule 24 no employee shall except with the previous sanction of the Government have recourse to any court or to the press for the vindication of any official act which has been the subject-matter of adverse criticism or an attack of defamatory character. 7. From the affidavits filed in this case it appears that the duties of an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master are identical to any other Branch Post Master who is employed as a member of the regular service of the Posts and Telegraphs Department of the Government of India. It is thus clear that the post of an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master is under the administrative control of the Union, and is a post to which the duties in connection with the affairs of the Union are attached. The specified officers of the Government have the right to select and appoint the holder of the post. It is thus clear that the post of an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master is under the administrative control of the Union, and is a post to which the duties in connection with the affairs of the Union are attached. The specified officers of the Government have the right to select and appoint the holder of the post. The Government has the right to remove or dismiss him from service. It is apparent that the Branch Post Master has to do his duties under the control and supervision of the higher departmental authorities. He draws a definite rate of monthly pay. He is a public servant entrusted with the duty to do official acts in relation to the affairs of the Union. It is in my opinion evident that a relationship of master and servant exists between the Government of India and an Extra Departmental Agent. Such an employee is hence the holder of a civil post within meaning of Articles 310 and 311 of the Constitution. He is entitled to the protection of Article 311(2). Under it such an employee is entitled to a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be awarded. No such opportunity was admittedly afforded to the petitioner. The order of dismissal violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution and was consequently void and of no legal effect. 8. For the respondents reliance was placed upon Ch. Venkata Swamy v. Superintendent, Post Offices, AIR 1957 Orissa 112. There it was hell on a consideration of the relevant conditions of employment then prevailing, that an Extra Departmental Agent was not a person holding a civil post. That case was disapproved by the Supreme Court in A. I. R. 1967 S.C. 884 referred to above. Further, it appears that at that time one of the rules provided that if an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master goes on leave he could himself nominate his successor for the duration of his leave. No such rule exists now. That case, therefore, is distinguishable. 9. It was also submitted that under Rule 284 of volume 284 of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual a Branch Post Office should be placed in charge of an Extra Departmental Postal Agent such as School Masters, Station Masters, Shop-keepers, land-owners and pensioned servants of Government who have sources of income. That case, therefore, is distinguishable. 9. It was also submitted that under Rule 284 of volume 284 of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual a Branch Post Office should be placed in charge of an Extra Departmental Postal Agent such as School Masters, Station Masters, Shop-keepers, land-owners and pensioned servants of Government who have sources of income. School Masters, Station Masters and others who are paid servants are not to be appointed as Extra Departmental Postal Agents without the previous consent of their superior officers or the employers as the case may be. The police officer who is not a pensioner is not to be employed as Extra Departmental Postal Agent without the previous sanction of the Director General of Postal Services. On the bask of this rule it was suggested that an Extra Departmental Postal Agent is not a civil post but an employment otherwise than on a civil post. The qualifications or the situation in life of the persons who can be selected by the Government to a particular post would not be relevant or material to the question whether the employment is on a civil post within the meaning of Article 310 of the Constitution. The concept of a civil post under Article 310 of the Constitution has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above. The fact that the post is created or abolished by the "Government at its choice, that it has a right to make an appointment to it, the fact that the post carries duties relating to the administration of the Government, coupled with the fact that there exists a relationship of master and servant between the Government and the holder of the post, clearly establish that Extra Departmental postal Agent is a civil post." In this case reference has been made to the 1964 Edition of the Rules. We have seen the 1959 Edition of the Manual. There also no rule permits the agent to nominate his successor during a leave vacancy. We are in agreement with the view taken in this case. The appellant was holding a Civil Post. There being a clear breach of Article 311(2) the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. 10. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. The impugned order dated 17-10-1959 insofar as it imposed upon the appellant the quashed. The appellant was holding a Civil Post. There being a clear breach of Article 311(2) the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. 10. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. The impugned order dated 17-10-1959 insofar as it imposed upon the appellant the quashed. It will, however, be open to the punishment of removal from service is respondent to take appropriate proceeding, and pass suitable orders. Under the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.