JUDGMENT K. Sadasivan, J. 1. The petitioner entered the Public Works Department as a C.L.R. worker in 1967. On 22-1-1968 by G. O. Ms. 17/68/Pw, the category of C.L.R. workers was abolished by the Government, and those who had worked all the 12 months for a minimum number of 240 days on the whole, during the previous year ending 31st July 1967, and who had been continuing as C.L.R. workers in the P.W.D., were converted, and treated as N.M.R. workers. The petitioner also got this benefit with retrospective effect from 1-10-1967. While so, according to the petitioner, the post of N.M.R. workers was made pensionable, and all the benefits to which the Government servants were entitled, were extended to the N.M.R. workers also with effect from 1-7-1969. By G. O. (P) No. 189/69/PW dated 25-11-1969, the services of the petitioner and others were made pensionable with effect from 1-7-1969. The petitioner is now working as N.M.R. labourer in the Marine Section at Vizhinjam. 2. While the petitioner was working as a C.L.R. worker, he was involved in a criminal case, and was finally convicted by the Sessions Court at Trivandrum in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1967 for an offence under S.323 I.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. The judgment was pronounced on 15-12-1967 while the petitioner was working as a C.L.R. worker. On 27-1-1969 the petitioner was served with a memorandum by the 3rd respondent, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Trivandrum, calling upon him to show cause within 14 days why his services should not be terminated, as he had been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. The Memo is Ex. P2. Before the petitioner could file his explanation, he was relieved from service with effect from 27-1-1969. The relieving order is Ex. P3. The petitioner complains that he was not given the opportunity of being heard. Ex. P3 therefore, is illegal, improper, and is violative of the principles of natural justice. On receipt of Ex. P3, a petition was filed by him before the Hon'ble Minister for Public Works requesting him to reconsider the matter, but his prayer was rejected. The petitioner in the circumstances, prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records and quashing Ex. P3 order. On receipt of Ex. P3, a petition was filed by him before the Hon'ble Minister for Public Works requesting him to reconsider the matter, but his prayer was rejected. The petitioner in the circumstances, prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records and quashing Ex. P3 order. It is also prayed that an order may be issued directing the respondents not to relieve the petitioner from service or debar him from service. 3. 1st respondent stated in his counter that after enrolment of the petitioner as an N.M.R. worker, it came to their notice that he was convicted by the Sessions Court, Trivandrum in Crl. Appeal 35 of 1967 for an offence involving moral turpitude. The Junior Engineer was accordingly given instructions by the Chief Engineer to relieve the petitioner from service, and he was accordingly relieved on 27-1-1969. This action was taken by the Government in accordance with the standing orders that when an employee is punished for offences involving moral turpitude, he might be debarred from further employment in Government Service (vide letter No. 7347/EBL/67/PW dated 13-3-1967). The petitioner thereupon appealed to the Hon'ble Minister for Public Works, and requested for stay of the order. Government accordingly issued a temporary stay order on 30-1-1969. Final orders in the proceedings were passed by the Government on 11-5-1970 rejecting the petition and vacating the stay order (vide Ex. P5). 4. It is true that the Executive Engineer had issued a notice to the petitioner on 24-1-1969 (Ex. P2) to show cause within 14 days why his services should not be terminated and his services debarred. But later, it was found that it is not necessary to give him any notice and his disbandment from service was on the ground of conduct which had led to his conviction on a criminal charge. Under proviso (a) to Art.311 (2) of the Constitution, even regular Government servants are liable to be removed from service without notice. The show cause notice was issued by the Executive Engineer without understanding the correct procedure. Therefore, the Chief Engineer's action in having issued the directions for the disbandment of the petitioner from duty and debarring him from future services is quite legal. It was in these circumstances that Ex. P3 order was issued terminating his services. The show cause notice was issued by the Executive Engineer without understanding the correct procedure. Therefore, the Chief Engineer's action in having issued the directions for the disbandment of the petitioner from duty and debarring him from future services is quite legal. It was in these circumstances that Ex. P3 order was issued terminating his services. N.M.R. workers have not so far been absorbed into regular Government service. They are kept as a separate category. The provisions of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 and Kerala Service Rules are not applicable to them. Action against the petitioner is not taken under Kerala Service Rules. The position of N.M.R. workers with regard to disciplinary proceedings has been made quite clear in Ex. R3 dated 27-11-1968. The position therefore, is that the petitioner is not a Government servant as contended by him, and the Service Rules are not applicable to him. There is no merit in his contention that he has been proceeded against under the K.S.R. for an offence committed before the K.S.R. had been made applicable to him. Moreover, before certain privileges had been extended to N.M.R. workers under Ex. P1 order dated 25-11-1969 the impugned order dismissing the petitioner was passed on 27-1-1969. 5. The order relieving the petitioner from service (Ex. P3) is challenged firstly on the ground that the act constituting the offence for which the petitioner was convicted, was committed before he joined the department as an N.M.R. worker and secondly, that the order is violative of the rules of natural justice in that he was given no reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges. But neither of these questions in fact, arises in this case, because the protection of Art.311 can be availed of only by a member of the civil service of the Union or the All India Services, or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State. Under Art.311 (2) no such person as aforesaid, shall be dismissed or removed, or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. Under Art.311 (2) no such person as aforesaid, shall be dismissed or removed, or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. Before a person can invoke Art.311 he must establish that he is a member of a civil service of the Union or an All India Service or a civil service of a state or holds a civil post under the Union or a State. The petitioner, as is evident from Ex. R3 letter No. 59311-EBI/68/PW dated 27-11-1968, was not holding a civil post within the meaning of Art.311 of the Constitution. Ex. R3 runs on these lines: "These workers (N.M.R.) do not come under work establishment or contingent establishment and they do not hold civil posts coming within the ambit of Art.311 of the Constitution of India. Most of the N.M.R. workers were daily rated workers till 1-10-1967. From 1-10-1967 instead of giving them wages daily, it was decided to give them wages monthly. This change does not make any difference in the rules applicable to or service conditions relating to these workers. They cannot be treated as other regular Government employees and therefore the K.C.S. (C. C. & A) Rules or the Government Servants Conduct Rules may not apply in 1 their case". 6. The protection of Art.311 of the Constitution therefore, cannot be availed of by the petitioner, as he was not holding a civil post at the time the disciplinary action was taken against him. On this short ground that petition is liable to be dismissed, and we do so. The parties will bear their cost.