Judgment :- 1. The petitioner before us was working as an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master at Avilora in Calicut Division under the control of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Calicut. The appointment of the petitioner to the said post had been made as per the order Ext. P1 passed in May, 1973. The petitioner was put off duty from 14 81975 and subsequently, by the order Ext. P5 dated 4101975 the service of the petitioner was terminated "with immediate effect for unsatisfactory work" under R.6 of the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. This writ petition has been brought by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext. P5. The contention urged before us is that the petitioner was holding a civil post under the Union of India, that he was entitled to the protection under Art.311 of the Constitution that the order Ext. P5 amounts to his dismissal or removal from service so as to attract the provisions of Art.311 and that since the procedure laid down therein was admittedly not followed before Ext. P5 was passed, the impugned order is illegal and void. 2. R.6 aforementioned under which the impugned action has been taken is in the following terms: "6. Termination of Services: The services of an employee who have not already rendered more than 3 years continuous service from the date of his appointment shall be liable to termination by the appointing authority at any time without notice for generally unsatisfactory work, or on any administrative ground unconnected with his conduct." In our opinion, the power conferred on the appointing authority by this rule is analogous to that of discharging a probationer from service on the ground of his having found to be unsuitable for regular absorption. A termination bona fide effected in exercise of the power conferred by this rule cannot be regarded as an order of punishment for misconduct. The Rules have vested power in the appointing authority to weed out from among the personnel who have not already rendered more than three years continuous service, persons whose work is found to be unsatisfactory, obviously with a view to ensure that proper standards of efficiency are maintained amongst the staff who are to be retained in the department for longer terms. As pointed out by a Full Bench of Five Judges of this Court in Madhavankutty v. Post Master (1978 KLT. 605) (FB.) an order passed in the exercise of such a power of termination simpliciter will not amount to dismissal or removal from service so as to attract Art.311 of the Constitution. The contention advanced by the petitioner to the contrary has, therefore, only to be rejected. The original petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs. Dismissed.