DUTTA, C. J.:- The petitioner Shri Girish Chandra Goswami was an Assistant Co-opera­tive Officer from 1960 till 28-2-1965. His case is as follows: On 13th August, 1963, depart­mental proceedings were drawn up against him by Shri A. K. Roy, Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam, Shillong, on various charges. On 9th January, 1964, Shri A. All, Joint Regis­trar of Co-operative Societies, Assam, who was appointed as the Enquiring Officer, informed the petitioner that the evidence of about 11 persons would be taken on 22-1-1964, 23-1-1964 and 24-1-1964 and the petitioner was ask­ed to be personally present at 10-30 a.m. at Hajo Inspection Bungalow on those days. The petitioner informed the Enquiring Officer on 20-1-1964 that as he was suffering from dysen­tery, it would not be possible for him to ap­pear before the Enquiring Officer on 22-1-1964. This letter was duly received by the Enquiring Officer. The petitioner was again informed on 23-1-1964 that evidence of four persons would be taken on 4th and 5th Feb. at 10-30 a.m. in the office of the Assistant Registrar of Co­operative Societies. This notice did not in­clude the names of the witnesses. The peti­tioner who was still ill again wrote that it would not be possible for him to appear be­fore the Enquiring Officer as he was still suffer­ing from dysentery. After that the petitioner did not receive any intimation about the in­quiry but subsequently he came to learn that the enquiry was held on 14-3-1964 and on 15-3-1964. The petitioner did not receive any intima­tion regarding this inquiry and could not be present at it. But from the enquiry report the petitioner learnt that a letter dated 27-2-1964 was sent to him through a peon Shri Ajit Chandra Haloi, but as he was at Gauhati from 28-2-1964 to 14-3-1964, this letter was never delivered to him, nor was it hung up on the house of the petitioner as alleged by the peon. This peon was not examined by the Enquiring Officer, but his report was accepted by him. It further transpired from the enquiry report that another peon Shri Bipin Chandra Kalita was sent to the petitioner's house on 13-3-1964 in his absence and this peon was alleged to have given the letter dated 11-3-1964 to a minor boy, namely Shri P. Goswami, in the absence of the petitioner. The petitioner was informed by P. Goswami only on 19-3-1964 about this letter. The petitioner was informed by P. Goswami only on 19-3-1964 about this letter. Consequently, the hearing by the Enquiring Officer on 14-3-1964 and 15-3-1964 was ex parte in the absence of the peti­tioner and the petitioner was thus deprived of his valuable right to defend himself and cross-examine the witnesses. On the 17th June, 1964, Shri A. K. Roy, Registrar of Co-operative Societies, sent to the petitioner a copy of the inquiry report and the petitioner was asked to show cause by 1-7-1964 why he should not be dismissed from service. On receipt of the report the petitioner re­quested the Registrar to furnish him copies of the depositions of the witnesses examined by the Enquiring Office] to enable him to show cause. The depositions were taken at the back of the petitioner. On the 19th September, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, informed the petitioner that such copies could not he given. On the other hand, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation by 5-10-1964. The petitioner applied for extension of time and he was given extension and on 11th October the petitioner submitted his explanation without the advantage of going through the depositions. Subsequently again on the 16th February, 1965 he submitted a rejoinder to his explanation and it was duly received. But in spite of all this, on the 8th March, 1965 an order was issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, hold­ing that the charges against the petitioner had been satisfactorily proved and dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from the 1st March, 1965. It is against this order of dis­missal that the petitioner has come before us under Article 226 of the Constitution. (2) Firstly, it may be noted that the peti­tioner did not get an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses, who were examined on 14-3-1964 and 15-3-1964. It appears that the contention of the petitioner is that he did not receive the letters informing him of the in­quiry on those days. On the other hand, in the affidavit submitted on behalf of the Depart­ment it is said that the petitioner deliberately refused to accept the letters. I do not see why the letters could not be sent to the petitioner by registered post. In any event, the fact re­mains that the petitioner did not get an oppor­tunity of cross-examining the witnesses exa­mined on those days. I do not see why the letters could not be sent to the petitioner by registered post. In any event, the fact re­mains that the petitioner did not get an oppor­tunity of cross-examining the witnesses exa­mined on those days. It is said in the affidavit of the Department that the petitioner failed to appear before the Enquiring Officer on 22-1-1964. But the contention of the petitioner is that he was ill on that day. An appeal is pro­vided for in the Service Rules framed under Article 809 of the Constitution. Therefore, such an appeal is statutory. But the appeal of the petitioner before the Government was sum marily rejected without any opportunity being given to him of a personal hearing. This is also not legal. It appears that the petitioner submitted a review petition, which was also rejected summarily. (3) In the order of dismissal it is said that the petitioner tried to explain as much as he could by verbal pleadings. It was further said that he could not improve on what he stated in writings. Therefore, it was held that there was no good cause to grant him time further as it would delay matters. It appears from this that the petitioner asked" for time for a personal hearing and this was refused on the ground that the petitioner could not possibly improve matters by any verbal pleadings. This is an arbitrary order refusing adjournment. (4) In view of all these circumstances it must be held that the petitioner did not get reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his removal, and that his appeal was disposed of arbitrarily. In a statutory appeal, the parties must be given a hearing and the order passed must be a speaking order. In this case the appellate order is a cryptic one and the appeal was disposed of summarily. The dis­missal of the petitioner cannot, therefore, be sustained and the dismissal order dated the 1st /8th March 1965 passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam, Shillong, is set aside. The petition is accordingly allowed and the rule is made absolute, but there will b« no order as to costs. (5) M. C. PATHAK J.:-I agree. Petition allowed.