JUDGMENT S. P. Sinha, J. The petitioner's services as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master having been dispensed with for dereliction of duty, he has filed this application for quashing the order contained in annexure 3' which was upheld on appeal as contained in annexure 5'. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master was a civil post within the meaning of Articles 310 and 311 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the petitioner could not be dismissed from service without affording him a second opportunity of showing cause against the punishment imposed. The further contention is that even otherwise his dismissal had been in violation of the rules of natural justice and proceedings for his dismissal had not been conducted in accordance with the departmental rules. 2. The petitioner was appointed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Monghyr Division as an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master of Darha, a branch post office in village Mallehpur in Monghyr division on the 18th of March, 1956. On the 22nd of May, 1969 he was served with a notice to show cause as to why action under rule7(ii) of the Post and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, be not taken against him for the charges as annexed to annexure ‘l’ of this writ petition. In terms of the said provision of the Rules the penalty imposed is removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. The charge against the petitioner was that certain money orders had been received at his post office for delivery to two persons, Sri Lachhuman Bhuian of village Labhit and Shrimati Saukhi Deva Bhuian, wife of Shri Lachhman Bhuian. The petitioner did not give requisite intimation to the payees relating to the money orders. Even when the payees were reported to be not available at the addresses the petitioner did not redirect the money orders to the revised addresses of the payees and kept it detained at his branch office unnecessarily. When the payees went to the petitioner accompanied by one Shri Giriwar Narain Singh of village Labhit, who was an ex-Extra Departmental Agent of Khailgram, who identified the payees, the petitioner did not make the payment and the money orders were kept detained without any reason. When the payees went to the petitioner accompanied by one Shri Giriwar Narain Singh of village Labhit, who was an ex-Extra Departmental Agent of Khailgram, who identified the payees, the petitioner did not make the payment and the money orders were kept detained without any reason. The payees even produced their provident fund slips and attested photographs to identify themselves. Even then the payment was not made. The further allegation is that the petitioner demanded from the payees illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- for effecting payment of the money orders to them. It may be stated here that the total amount of money as per the money orders was a sum of Rs. 2,600/- Being unable to receive payment from the petitioner the payees made an application to the Sub Post Master of Mallehpur that the money orders may be recalled from Darha Branch post office and be paid to them at Mallehpur. Even when necessary orders were passed calling upon the petitioner to return the money orders to Mallehpur, the petitioner did not do so immediately, but after a long delay of fifteen days and when he returned the money orders he returned them with a remark "refused". On these facts the petitioner was charged with causing willful and intentional detention of money orders in disobedience of orders; giving incorrect remarks while returning the money orders and failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. The petitioner showed cause stating that as the amount of money orders in question were heavy he took extra precaution to satisfy himself regarding the genuineness of the payees in order to avoid mis-payment and a fraudulent payment. He did not give any reason for disobeying the instruction to return the money orders immediately. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was duly considered by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Monghyr Division and having found them to be unsatisfactory he passed orders removing the petitioner "from the charge of E.B.P.M. Darha B. C. with immediate effect". This order is dated 19th of July, 1969 and is contained in annexure 3' to the petition. The petitioner appealed to the Director Postal Service, Bihar Circle, Patna against the punishment but the appeal has been dismissed and the order was conveyed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Monghyr, vide annexure 5'. 3. Mr. This order is dated 19th of July, 1969 and is contained in annexure 3' to the petition. The petitioner appealed to the Director Postal Service, Bihar Circle, Patna against the punishment but the appeal has been dismissed and the order was conveyed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Monghyr, vide annexure 5'. 3. Mr. Shilesh Chandra Mishra, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had been illegally dismissed from service and the dismissal was made in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution. According to Mr. Mishra, the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master is a civil post within the meaning of Articles 310 and 311 of the Constitution and therefore the petitioner was entitled to second show came notice concerning the proposed punishment. He further submitted that in terms of rule 8 of the Rules, the order imposing the penalty could not be passed until the petitioner had been informed in writing of the action proposed to be taken against him and that the petitioner was thereafter to be given an opportunity to make his representation against the proposed action. In any event, Mr. Mishra submitted that the rules of natural justice demanded that if any evidence was to be used against the petitioner he should have been given an opportunity to meet it. In the instant case he submitted that respondent no. 2; the Superintendent of Post Offices, took into consideration such evidence as had been taken behind the back of the petitioner. On these grounds it was submitted that annexure 3' as confirmed by annexure 5' be quashed and the petitioner should be reinstated to his post. 4. Mr. Tara Kant Jha, appearing for the respondents submitted that, the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner are invalid, inasmuch as neither the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master is a civil post within the meaning of Articles 310 and 311 of the Constitution nor the dismissal of the petitioner from his post has been made in violation of the departmental rules or the rules of natural justice. Mr. Mr. Jha submitted that the petitioner had virtually accepted the charge of having detained the money orders without assigning any reason for doing so and had also given no explanation for disobedience of the order in detaining the money orders for a pretty long time, almost fifteen days, even when he had orders for returning the money orders immediately to another post office. The basic charges having been accepted and the proceedings having been conducted in the manner as laid in the Rules, the order dispensing with the service of the petitioner was valid and must be upheld. 5. In my opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents is well founded and must be accepted. I will first take up the question as to whether the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master is a civil post within the meaning of article 311 of the Constitution. There is no formal definition of the expression 'Civil Post, as occurring in Article 311 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in the case of the State of Assam and others a. Kanak Chandra Dutta A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 884 has, however, described the expression as prima facie meaning an appointment in office on the civil side of the administration as distinguished from the post under the defence forces. It was observed by their Lordships that- “.....It is a post on the civil as distinguished from the defence side of the administration, an employment in a civil capacity under the Union or a State....and a civil post means a post not connected with defence outside the regular civil services. A post is a service or employment. A person holding a post under a State is a person serving or employed under the State..... There is a relationship of master and servant between the State and a person said to be holding a post under it. 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. 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 relationship 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 post. In the context of Arts, 309, 310, and 311, a post denotes an office. A person who holds a civil post under a State holds "office" during the pleasure of the Governor of the State, except as expressly provided by the Constitution.. ...A post under the State 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. Article 310 (2) contemplates that a post may be abolished and a person holding a post may be required to vacate the post, and it emphasises the idea of a post existing apart from the holder of the post. A post may be created before the appointment or simultaneously with it. A post is an employment) but every employment is not a post. A casual labourer is not the holder of a post. 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 persons appointed to the post". 6. The foregoing observations of the Supreme Court make it clear that the emphasis is laid not on the control over the post but on the control over the employee or the person employed in the post. In other words only such an employee can be said to be holding a post under the Government who is not only serving the Government but is in the service of the Government. There must be a relationship of master and servant between the Government and the employee. In other words only such an employee can be said to be holding a post under the Government who is not only serving the Government but is in the service of the Government. There must be a relationship of master and servant between the Government and the employee. Unless there is that relationship a person cannot be said to be in the service of the Government even though the Government may have a power of removing the person from serving it. Judged in the context of the aforesaid test and on the basis of the term of employment of a person as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master the said post cannot be a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. In the rules relating to the conduct and service of the Post & Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agent called by the title 'Post & Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct & Service) Rules 1964, the term 'employee' has been defined in section 2 (a) as 'an agent' and not as a member of a civil service or the holder of a civil post. The term 'Extra Departmental Agent' has been defined in sub-clause (b) and includes an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master Rules 4 lays down that the employee shall not be entitled to any pension. Rule 5 deals with matters relating to leaves. It says that the employee shall be entitled to such leave as may be determined by the Government from time to time. The Government issued further rules vide letter no, 43/19/69/Pen dated 28.10.69 in connection with grant of leave to Extra Departmental Agents which took effect from the 31st of march, 1969. In its paragraph 2 it is land down that. “During leave, every Extra Departmental Agent should arrange for his work being carried on by a substitute who should be a person approved by the appointing authority. Such approval shall be obtained in writing.” Paragraph 3 lays down that- “The allowance normally payable to an Extra Departmental Agent, shall during leave, be paid to the approved substitute provided by him”. Paragraph 5 lays down that- “If an Extra Departmental Agent remains on leave for more than 180 days at a stretch, he shall cease to be an Extra Departmental Agent”. Paragraph 5 lays down that- “If an Extra Departmental Agent remains on leave for more than 180 days at a stretch, he shall cease to be an Extra Departmental Agent”. By virtue of section 284 of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual Volume IV page 155, School Masters, Station Masters, Shopkeepers, Land-holders and even paid or pensioned servants of Government with the previous consent of the official superiors or employers can be placed in charge as Extra Departmental Agents, such as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master. In the case of Ch. Venkata Swamy v. Superintendent Post Office A.I.R. 1957 Orissa 112, the nature and duties of an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master have been enumerated at page 116. I have already referred to the various rules concerning such Branch Post Master and yet I would like to quote from it the nature of the rights and obligation of an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master. It is said as under:- “He is not entitled to any pension, nor is he entitled to contribute to any provident fund. A monthly allowance is paid to him, out of which he has to defray the expenses connected with his post office including the expenses of accommodation. He is allowed to go on leave after putting his own nominees, agent or servant, in charge of the post office.....”. It is inconceivable, if the relationship between the Government and the Extra-Departmental Branch Post Master is that of a master and servant, that the servant would be at liberty to leave the master's job giving a substitute to serve the master. When a master employs a servant he recognises only that servant for the purposes of his work. If a servant is entitled to give a substitute for himself to the master to carryon the work, obviously the emphasis is upon the work being done and not upon the work being done by the particular servant. Such an employee, no doubt, works for the master, but the relationship is not that of a master and servant but that of an employer and a labourer. To my mind, therefore, it appears that Extra Departmental Branch Post Masters are mere agents of Government in respect of postal work. Such an employee, no doubt, works for the master, but the relationship is not that of a master and servant but that of an employer and a labourer. To my mind, therefore, it appears that Extra Departmental Branch Post Masters are mere agents of Government in respect of postal work. They are drafted into service from any category of persons, be they School master, Station Masters, Shopkeepers, Land-holders or persons in service or outside it to carryon the particular job and they carry on the job in accordance with the instructions, as contained in the Posts and Telegraphs Manual for which they are paid so long as they are willing to do the job themselves. The control of the Government over these agents is more or less akin to the control of an employer over hired labourer, with this difference that the agent has to work in accordance with set rules. Thus, in my opinion, a person serving as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master does not hold a civil post. 7. Mr. Mishra has made reference to a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in 1972 S.L.R. 799 (Jogendra Bahadur Vs. Senior Superintendent of. Post Offices) 1972 S.L.R. 799. The Hon'ble Judges have held that the post of an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master is a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution and a person holding the post is entitled to the protection under that Article. Their Lordships have noticed the aforesaid decision of the Orissa High Court, A.I.R. 1957 Orissa 112, and have observed that that case was disapproved by the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 881, referred to above. Their Lordships have further observed that the Orissa High Court gave its decision on the basis of a rule which was in existence then that if an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master wont on leave he could himself nominate his successor for the duration of his leave. According to their Lordships no such rule existed now. If I may say so, with respect, the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 884 has disapproved the view expressed by the Orissa High Court only in so far as it concerns an observation that a temporary Extra Departmental Branch Post Master being a part time employee could not be the holder of a civil post. If I may say so, with respect, the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 884 has disapproved the view expressed by the Orissa High Court only in so far as it concerns an observation that a temporary Extra Departmental Branch Post Master being a part time employee could not be the holder of a civil post. This observation of the Orissa High Court has been held to be too wide an observation. It is only to that extent that the Supreme Court has disapproved the view of the Orissa High Court. They have not disapproved the conclusion arrived at by the Orissa High Court that the post of an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master was not a civil post. I may further observe that the rule provided for the nomination of a substitute during the leave period by Extra Departmental Branch Post Master is still there and I have already quoted the said rule. Thus although their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court have taken a view which fully supports Mr. Mishra's contention, since, in my opinion, that decision has proceeded on certain premises which did not exist, with due respect I am unable to follow that decision. 8. Mr. Mishra has cited the following decisions of the Supreme Court:- Dinbandhu Sahu v. Jadumoni Mangaraj and other. A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 411 Gazula Dasratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 564 M. Ramappa v. Sangappa and others A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 937 and State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Audh Narain Singh and another A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 360 to support his case that the post of an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master is a civil post. He tried to draw an analogy from these decisions in which certain other posts have been held to be a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. It is needless to discuss these case laws, in as much as the question as to whether a particular post was a civil post or not essentially depended on the finding as to whether or not there was a relationship of master and servant between the employer and the employee. The latter was a question of fact which has to be determined in the context of the facts and circumstances of each case. Such case will, therefore, differ on its own facts and circumstances. The latter was a question of fact which has to be determined in the context of the facts and circumstances of each case. Such case will, therefore, differ on its own facts and circumstances. In such view of the matter, the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court is not of any avail to Mr. Mishra. On the facts of the instant case I am, of the view that the post of an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master is not a civil post within the meaning of Article 310 or 311 of the Constitution and consequently the petitioner was not entitled to the protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. No illegality was committed in not granting the petitioner an opportunity to have a second show cause notice in respect of the punishment proposed to be inflicted on him. 9. I now come to the second contention, namely, that the proceedings for imposing the penalty was not conducted in accordance with the Rules. Rule 8 lays down the procedure for imposing penalty. It reads: “No order imposing a penalty shall be passed except after: The employee is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegation on which it is proposed to be taken and given an opportunity to take any representation he may wish to make”. Referring to annexure 1', I find that the show cause notice is in the following terms: “Shri Naresh Prasad Singh (Designation) E. D. A. (Office in which working) Darha B.O. is hereby informed that it is proposed to take action against him under rule 7 (ii) of P & T, E. D. Agent (Conduct and Service) Rules 1964. A statement of allegations is enclosed”. In my opinion, the procedure adopted by respondent no. 2 for imposing penalty on the petitioner is fully in consonance with the aforesaid provisions of the Rules. The allegations are disclosed and so also the particular Rule under which the action is proposed to be taken. There is, therefore, no violation in conducting the proceedings for imposing the penalty on the petitioner. 10. That last contention is that the rules of natural justice have been violated because such matters were taken into consideration for imposing the penalty as had not been made known to the petitioner. There is, therefore, no violation in conducting the proceedings for imposing the penalty on the petitioner. 10. That last contention is that the rules of natural justice have been violated because such matters were taken into consideration for imposing the penalty as had not been made known to the petitioner. Firstly I do not und any basis for such a complaint, because the facts found against the petitioner and which have formed the basis for the punishment imposed on him are all based on official records maintained at the petitioner's end and secondly, on reading the representation of the petitioner (Annexure 2) it appears that he has accepted having detained the money orders for a long time undelivered to the payees and further he has not denied the charge of having not immediately returned the money orders to the post office where he was asked to return them. The principle of natural justice, in so far as it concerns giving an opportunity to the charged person, requires that the charged person should be given an opportunity to meet the charges, if he can, by cogent evidence. Where, the charges are admitted or not denied by the person concerned there is no point in making further inquiry into these very matters. If facts relevant for the purposes of the decisions are admitted, there is an end of the matter. If a punishment is imposed on the basis of those admitted facts, there cannot be a breach of any principle of natural justice. The Supreme Court in the case of Channabasappa Happali v. The State of Mysore A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 32 observed. “The pleas of the petitioner are quite clear; in fact he admitted all the relevant facts on which the decision could be given against him and therefore it cannot be stated that the enquiry was in breach of any principles of natural justice.........." In my opinion, this contention has also no merit. 11. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. I would, however, make no order as to costs. S. N. P. Singh, J-I agree. Application dismissed.