JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, A.C.J. 1. This writ petition by an Extra-Departmental Branch Post Master challenges the validity of the order of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Puri Division (O.P. No. 2) dated 27th March, 1978 (Annexure-5) terminating his service under Rule 6 of the Posts and Telegraphs Extra-Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). 2. On March 8, 1976 the Petitioner was appointed by the opposite party No. 2 as an Extra-Departmental Branch Post Master. On September 28, 1977 he was put off duty in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules "pending investigation into his work and conduct". On March 27, 1978 service of the Petitioner was terminated with effect from the date he was put off duty (vide Annexure-5). 3. The Petitioner's contention is that though the order of termination is ex-facie innocuous it was founded on misconduct and was passed without affording him an opportunity as contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 4. In the counter affidavit field on behalf of the opposite parties it is stated that the Petitioner was put off duty by order dated 29-9-1977 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules and that the order was issued pending investigation into the work and conduct of the Petitioner. It is also stated that the Petitioner received a money order for Rs. 300/- payable to one Khali Naik and fraudulently got an endorsement of payment of the money order on 25-7-1977 wish a fictitious thumb impression which was not of the payee. There was a detailed enquiry made by the Inspector of Post Offices, Khurda and after the unsatisfactory work of the Petitioner was established the order of termination of his service was issued' under Rule 6 of the Rules. The above statements practically admit the case of the Petitioner that his service was terminated following a complaint about misconduct. 5. Rule 6 of the Rules is in the following terms: 6. Termination of Services: The services of an employee who has 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 within his conduct. Termination of Services: The services of an employee who has 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 within his conduct. This rule can be invoked in case an employee has not rendered more than three years' continuous service and in the event of two alternatives being satisfied, namely, (1) for generally unsatisfactory work, or (2) on any administrative ground un connected with his conduct. 6. The Petitioner has not rendered more than three years' continuous service as a Branch Post Master but the order of termination of service in Annexure-5 does not indicate any reason for such termination. Though the order of termination is ex-facie innocuous, the facts and circumstances of the case would go to show that the very foundation of the order was misconduct. The order in Annexure-3 clearly shows that the Petitioner was put off duty in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules pending investigation into his work and conduct. Rule 9 provides that an employee shall be liable to be put off from duty pending enquiry into any complaint or allegation of any misconduct against him. The statements made in the counter affidavit would also go to show that the order of termination of service was based on a complaint a bout misconduct although the order is couched in a plain language containing no stigma. The acts alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner would amount to gross misconduct which called for disciplinary action. Admittedly no disciplinary proceeding was initiated and no opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner to meet the case against him. On the basis of the admitted facts and also in the light of the facts and circumstances placed before us we are inclined to hold that the termination of the Petitioner's service was penal in nature and was made in violation of the mandatory provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. 7. It is now well settled that an extra-departmental Branch Post Master of the Postal Department holds a civil post within the meaning of Article 309 of the Constitution and that even a temporary civil servant is entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. 7. It is now well settled that an extra-departmental Branch Post Master of the Postal Department holds a civil post within the meaning of Article 309 of the Constitution and that even a temporary civil servant is entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. This rule can be invoked in case an employee has not rendered more than three years' continuous service and in the event of two alternatives being satisfied, namely, (1) for generally unsatisfactory work, or (2) on any administrative ground unconnected with his conduct. 8. We accordingly allow the writ petition and quash the order of termination of service of the Petitioner as per Affixture -5. We make no order as to costs. If the opposite parties want to proceed afresh against the Petitioner, they will have to institute a disciplinary proceeding and pass appropriate orders according to the outcome of the proceedings. G.B. Patnaik, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed