JUDGMENT 1. THIS rule is directed against an order dated February 22, 1973 passed by the Works Manager, Eastern Railway, Liluah removing the petitioner from his service. 2. ON April 6, 1972 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet issued by the Works Manager (Finishing), Eastern Railway, Liluah for having unauthorised possession of a Dynamo Belt on January 4, 1972, while functioning as a Carpenter under Foreman 'm' Shop, eastern Railway, Liluah. On April 17, 1972, he submitted a reply to :he said charge-sheet, denying the charges levelled against him. By an order dated May 3, 1972, the Respondent No. 2 directed to hold an enquiry and appointed Respondent No. 3 as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. The enquiry was started on June 22, 1972. It continued till October 10, 1972, during which nine witnesses were examined. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on November 14, 1972. Thereafter on December 1, 1972 the respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from service. On december 30, 1972 the petitioner submitted his explanation to the proposed punishment pointing out inter alia that the finding of the inquiry Officer was wholly extraneous to the materials on record. During the enquiry it had not been proved that the material alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner was a Railway Property. On March 2, 1973 the petitioner was served with a notice of removal from service issued by the Works Manager (F), Eastern Railway, liluah. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present Rule. Mr. Mukharji, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that findings of the Enquiry Officer were not based on evidence and no reasonable person would have come to the conclusion that the petition picked up the material, kept the same in a plastic bag with a jeep fastener before the arrivel of the workshop staff. The materials on the record did not show that the material alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner, was a Railway Property. According to Mr. Mukherji, the said report being perversed should be set aside. 3. I have carefully gone through the report. It is true that there was no evidence that the petitioner picked up the material and kept the same in plastic bag. According to Mr. Mukherji, the said report being perversed should be set aside. 3. I have carefully gone through the report. It is true that there was no evidence that the petitioner picked up the material and kept the same in plastic bag. But even then, there are ample evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution witnesses that the petitioner was coming out from the west gate of the workshop with a bag in his hand which contained a Dynamo Belt. Sri T. C. Banerji, Charge- man 'm' Shop said in his deposition that material appearing to be like Beit used in the machine shop or other shops in Liluah Workshop. The Enquiry Officer is the sole judge of fact and if there be some legal evidences on which his findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. Only in cases, where the findings are not based on legal evidence or that no reasonable conclusion could be arrived at on the basis of the materials before the Enquiry Officer on the findings based upon no material or perverse, this Court in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction can interfere with the report of the Enquiry Officer. In the instant case it is true that a part of the conclusion, arrived at by the Enquiry officer, is not based upon evidence but for the reason, his entire findings are not vitiated. 4. IT is next contended by Mr. Mukherji that the Competent Authority without applying its mind and without stating any reason whatsoever that why he found that the charges against the petitioner had proved and the petitioner's explanation was unacceptable, passed the order of removal. Provision for Appeal is provided under Rule 17 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968 for Non-Gazetted Railway Servants and in the absence of any reason in support of the order neither the Appellate Authority nor the High Court can examine the correctness of the order under review. It is submitted by Mr. Mukherji that even in an administrative order which affects the rights of a citizen reasons should be given by the authority. In other words, the order should be a speaking order. It is submitted by Mr. Mukherji that even in an administrative order which affects the rights of a citizen reasons should be given by the authority. In other words, the order should be a speaking order. The order of the Competent Authority is Annexure 'f' to the petition, wherein it is stated: "after considering your representation dated December 30, 1972 to the show cause notice. . . . . . I am satisfied from the facts and circumstances of the case that you are guilty of the charge framed in Memorandum No. LE. 68|da/m1301, dated April 6, 1972. I have, therefore, decided that you shall be removed from service and the same will take effect from March 3, 1973. " 5. IT appears that the petitioner in his reply to the second show cause dated December 30, 1972 raised various points and pointed out certain discrepancies in the evidence and findings of the Enquiry Officer. But it does not appear from the order of the Competent Authority that whether he considered the points raised by the petitioner in his reply to the second show cause notice or it approved and accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Rule 22 lays down that in case of an appeal against an order of imposing any penalty specified in Rule 6 which includes the major penalty, viz., removal from service, the Appellate Authority shall consider whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are warranted by the evidence on record. If not reasons are given on the face of the order, the Appellate Authority could not examine the correctness of the order, under appeal. The result would be that the petitioner's right to appeal would be stultified. 6. IN Jyoti Prasad Banerji and others v. Union of India and others (1975 (1) C. L. J. 75=1974 (1) C. W. N. 441.) this Court held that when an administrative order is made which affects the rights of an individual the reasons of the order must be fully stated. In other words it must be a speaking order. The supreme Court observed in Union of India v. M. L. Kapoor (A. l. R. 1974 S. C. 87.) that rubber stamp reason given mechanically for the suppression of an officer did not amount to reasons for the proposed suppression. In this connection the Supreme Court explained what are reasons and their necessity. The supreme Court observed in Union of India v. M. L. Kapoor (A. l. R. 1974 S. C. 87.) that rubber stamp reason given mechanically for the suppression of an officer did not amount to reasons for the proposed suppression. In this connection the Supreme Court explained what are reasons and their necessity. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusion. They disclosed how the mind is applied to the subject-matter of a decision, whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They reveal a rational nexus between the fact considered and the conclusion reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable. Therefore, in my view, the Disciplinary Authority in issuing the order of removal did not consider the petitioner's representation. It did not give any reason why the petitioner was found guilty any why the petitioner's explanation to the show cause was unacceptable. Accordingly, I quash the impugned order of removal dated february 22, 1973 which is Annexure 'f' to the petition. I direct the respondent No. 2 to consider afresh petitioner's representation to the second show cause and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. 7. IN the result, this Rule is made absolute. The impugned order is quashed by a writ of certiorari. There will be no order for costs.