ORDER H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - Petitioner was employed as Sub-Post Master in district Saharanpur in 1948. in 1950 he was working as officiating Reserve Clerk and had joined as such at Saharanpur Head Post Office. He was prosecuted for having committed embezzlement of certain money orders and was sentenced to two years' R. I. by the trial Magistrate. Petitioner's appeal against his conviction and sentence was, however, allowed by the learned Sessions Judge on 3-4-1958. Accordingly he was reinstated in service. Subsequently he was suspended and a charge-sheet dated 2-1-1960 was issued to him. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges levelled against him and thereafter one Sri Autar Singh, the then Post Master, Saharanpur held an enquiry under R. 15 of the Central Civil Services Rules,- 1957 in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner. He made a report holding that some of the charges, including the charge of embezzlement of certain amounts on account of money orders, have been established against the petitioner. The Superintendent of.Post Offices thereafter issued a second notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed. Taking into account the cause shown by the petitioner the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Saharanpur Division, passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from 13th November, 1963. 2. Petitioner addressed an appeal dated 2-1-1964 to the Director of Postal Services, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow through the Superintendent of Post Offices Saharanpur against his order of dismissal challenging its validity on various grounds and praying for the setting aside of the dismissal order. (Annexures Q1 and Q2 to the Supplementary affidavit). The Superintendent of Post Offices, however, instead of forwarding the appeal to the proper authority returned it under R. 23 of the Rules with the remark that "the appeal is not complete in itself". This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid order of the dismissal and the return of his appeal passed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Saharanpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned order of dismissal on several grounds. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid order of the dismissal and the return of his appeal passed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Saharanpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned order of dismissal on several grounds. It is urged that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself, inasmuch as,his request for being represented by a lawyer or by one Shanti Swarup Sharma or Sri Umesh Chand, both of whom were Government employees, was unceremoniously rejected by the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner's further request to inspect some of the documents relied upon by the Department was not acceded to and no handwriting expert was examined to enable the petitioner to prove his case that his alleged confession which had been relied upon for holding the charge of embezzlement established did not bear his signature. It has been urged that the Superintendent of Post Offices was not justified in law in withholding the petitioner's appeal. 4. Under Rule 24 of Central Civil Services Rules, 1957 an appeal lies in the case of an Order made in respect of Government servant on whom the penalty of dismissal from service can be imposed only by the President to the President; (sic) and in the case of an order made in respect of any other Government servant, to the authority to whom an appeal against an order imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from service would lie. 5. There is no dispute that in this case the appeal against the impugned order lay before the Director of Postal Services, 6., Rule 27 provided that every appeal shall be submitted to the authority which made the order appealed against. 7. Rule 28 reads; "Withholding of appeals. 5. There is no dispute that in this case the appeal against the impugned order lay before the Director of Postal Services, 6., Rule 27 provided that every appeal shall be submitted to the authority which made the order appealed against. 7. Rule 28 reads; "Withholding of appeals. (1) The authority which made the order appealed against may withhold the appeal if (i) it is an appeal against an order from which no appeal lies; or (ii) it does not comply with any of the provisions of Rule 26; or (iii) it is not submitted within the period specified in Rule 25 and no cause is shown for the delay; or (iv) it is a repetition of an appeal already decided and no new facts or circumstances are adduced; Provided that an appeal withheld on the .ground only that it does not comply with the provisions of Rule 26 shall be returned to the appellant and, if resubmitted within one month thereof after compliance with the said provisions, shall not be withheld. (2) Where an appeal is withheld, the appellant shall be informed of the fact and the reasons therefor. (3) At the commencement of each quarter, a list of the appeals withheld by any authority during the previous quarter, together with the reasons for withholding them, shall be furnished by that authority to the appellate authority." Rule 28, therefore, invests the power in the authority which made the order appealed against to withhold the appeal if it is an appeal against an order from which no appeal lies or it does not comply with any of the provisions of Rule 26. There is no dispute that the impugned order was appealable. 8. Rule 26 reads: "Form and contents of appeal. (1) Every person submitting an appeal shall do so separately and in his own name. (2) The appeal shall be addressed to the authority to whom the appeal lies, shall contain all material statements and arguments on which the appellant relies, shall not contain any disrespectful or improper language, and shall be complete in itself." 9. (1) Every person submitting an appeal shall do so separately and in his own name. (2) The appeal shall be addressed to the authority to whom the appeal lies, shall contain all material statements and arguments on which the appellant relies, shall not contain any disrespectful or improper language, and shall be complete in itself." 9. A perusal of the appeal addressed by the petitioner to the Director of Postal Services makes it evident that all the essential conditions of Rule 26 had been fulfilled, inasmuch as it had been submitted by the appellant in his own name, had been addressed to the authority to' whom the appeal lay and contained all material statements and arguments on which the petitioner relied in support of his appeal. The order dated 18-1-64 passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Saharanpur returning the appeal on the ground that it was not complete in itself is not in consonance with Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services Rules and as such is wholly unjustified. 10. As I am satisfied that the petition succeeds on this ground alone and the petitioner is entitled to have his appeal decided on merits by the appellate authority under the Central Civil Services Rules I do not consider it necessary to express any opinion on other questions raised in support of this petition. 11. In the result the petition succeeds in part, the impugned order of the Superintendent of Post Offices Saharanpur dated 18-1-64 returning the petition appeal as incompetent is quashed at writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to consider petitioner's appeal against the order his dismissal passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices Saharanpur Division on 12th November 1963 and to decided, on merits after hearing him in accordance with law. Petitioner shall get costs of this petition from the contesting respondents.