JUDGMENT K.B. Asthana, C.J. and Gopi Nath, J. - These five special appeals are directed against orders of a learned Single Judge allowing five writ petitioner. They raise common question of law and fact and can be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The appeals are concerned with the true scope and construction of Rule 14, (ii) of the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. Rule 14 is as under : "14. Special procedure in certain cases notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 9 to 13. (i) Where any penalty is imposed on a railway servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge ; or (ii) Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in these rules ; or (iii) Where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in these rules. The disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit provided that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary before any orders are made in any case under this rule." 3. The petitioners of the writ petitions are the respondents in the appeals. All of them except Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, respondent in Special Appeal No 273 of 1976 were ;employed in various capacities in the Diesel Locomotive Works Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as D.L.W.) a public undertaking administered by the Railway Board. Rajendra Prasad was a clerk in the North Eastern Railway at Gorakhpur. They were alleged to have taken active part in the Railway Strike in May, 1974. The Disciplinary Authority by the orders impugned in the writ petitions removed them from service without serving any show cause notice or framing any charges or holding any enquiry. 4. The impugned orders said that since it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry as provided in the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 removed the employees concerned with immediate effect. 5. 4. The impugned orders said that since it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry as provided in the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 removed the employees concerned with immediate effect. 5. The orders were challenged as invalid on the ground of their being passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, in that the incumbents were not given any opportunity to explain their conduct or to address the authority on the severity of punishment. The Union of India sought to support the orders on the strength of the provisions of Rule 14 which disposed with the holding of enquiry in certain disciplinary proceedings. Learned Single Judge quashed the orders on the ground that they were violative of the principles of natural justice and Rule 14 did not exclude the application of those principles as regards infliction of punishment. 6. The question for consideration thus is whether a railway servant proceeded against under Rule 14 is liable to be condemned unheard and subjected to the severest punishment of dismissal without any opportunity of representation. To put it Lit other surds whetter Rule 14 excludes the application of the principles of natural justice in proceedings under that rule. This leads us to examine those provisions in order to determine their true scope and effect. 7. The last portion of the rule requires the Disciplinary Authority to consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit". This clause applies to proceedings under all the clauses of the rule and the Disciplinary Authority is required to consider the circumstances of the case falling under any of the sub-rules. Consideration of circumstances is thus a duty enjoined on the disciplinary authority by the last part of the rule. Thus before taking any decision the Disciplinary Authority must have before him circumstances suggesting certain inferences. These can come to his knowledge either through the employee concerned other sources. Information received from other sources may be true or false. Their veracity cannot be noticed without the railway servant being apprised of them. Further, material information bearing on the question in favour of the servant may never reach the authority unless the party concerned is informed of the proceedings. Information received from other sources may be true or false. Their veracity cannot be noticed without the railway servant being apprised of them. Further, material information bearing on the question in favour of the servant may never reach the authority unless the party concerned is informed of the proceedings. Circumstances which are within the special knowledge of the party concerned can also be brought to the notice of the authority only when the party is informed of the proceedings and has an opportunity, of placing them. It is for these reasons that adverse orders affecting civil rights of a person are never passed behind his back. it seems to,us that the rule has, for reasons mentioned, made enough safeguard for the employee concerned, and the authority has, before reaching a decision, to make sure that he does not take into account circumstances whose existence has not been fully established and has further does not ignore from consideration circumstances which are relevant to the issue. 8. Further the penalty under the rule has to be imposed on an objective basis. We have accordingly to consider the true effect and scope of the words "considered the circumstances" as occurring in Rule 14. They came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in The Divisional Personal Officer Southern Railway and another, v. T.K. Challappan, A.I.R. 1975 SC 2216. In that case Rule 14(i) was considered with reference to the last part, of the rule. It was held that since that part required "the consideration of the circumstances" any order of removal passed without such consideration was bad in law. As to the ex. tent and ambit of the last part, it was observed that the word "consider" suggested that these should be active application of mind by the disciplinary authority to the circumstances of the case in folder to decide the nature and extent of the penalty to be imposed. This could be determined objectively only if the employee was heard and given a change to satisfy the authority regarding the final orders that may be passed by him. In another words the term "consider" it was said postulated consideration of all the aspects viz the pros and cons of the matter after hearing the aggrieved person. This could be determined objectively only if the employee was heard and given a change to satisfy the authority regarding the final orders that may be passed by him. In another words the term "consider" it was said postulated consideration of all the aspects viz the pros and cons of the matter after hearing the aggrieved person. Since the disciplinary authority did not comply with the requirements of the last part of the rule in that case, in that he did not hear the delinquent employee and consider the circumstances the order of removal was found bad. 9. It is thus abundantly clear that the question of penalty has to be considered objectively after giving an opportunity of hearing to the party concerned. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to distinguish The Divisional Personnel Officer case (supra) on the ground that it arose out of proceedings under Rule 14 (1). We have already held that the last part of Rule 14 applies to all the sub-rules of Rule 14 and the penalty imposed has to comply with the requirements of that part whether or not the case falls under sub-rule (i),(ii) or 'iii) of the rule. In Ram Chandra Sharma v. Union of Indian and others, 1977 Bihar Law Journal Reports 6, it was held that the last part of Rule 14 applies to all the three sub-rules of Rule 14 and the disciplinary authority was bound to issue notice to the delinquent employee before passing final orders of punishment. Any order passed in violation of the rules of natural justice it was held was void. It was further held that the statutory provision contained in the last part of the rule merely imported the rule of natural justice as was observed by the Supreme Court in Divisional Personnel Officer's case (supra). Thus any order passed under any of the sub-rules of Rule 14 in breach of the requirements of the last part renders the same void. The same view was taken in Raj Kumar v. Union of India, 1977 (1) SLR 1 . Thus any order passed under any of the sub-rules of Rule 14 in breach of the requirements of the last part renders the same void. The same view was taken in Raj Kumar v. Union of India, 1977 (1) SLR 1 . it was held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the word "may consider the circumstances of the case" as occur- ring at the end of Rule 14 applied to all the three clauses of the rule and the Disciplinary Authority was bound to hold a summary enquiry, in which it had to give an opportunity to the railway servant concerned to explanation the charges." The Gujarat High court in Bhola Math v. Union of India, 1975 (1) SLR 277 , while interpreting Rule 14 (ii) took the same view and held that opportunity was required to be afforded to the railway servant in regard to the punishment proposed to be awarded and the principles of natural justice were not taken away by the rule. It was observed that Rule 14 (ii) must be so construed as preserving the maximum and destroying the minimum principles of natural justice and fair play. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance on Chief Mechanical Engineer, Eastern Railway v. Jyoti Prasad Somgir, 1975 (2) SLR 437, where the Calcutta High Court held that the Principles of Natural Justice were excluded by necessary implication in view of the terms of Rule 14 (ii) which were analogous to those contained in the proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. It has to be noted that the last part of Rule 14 is not to be found in the proviso to Article 311 (2). We are mainly concerned with the interpretation of the last part of Rule 14 and the determination of its effect. We have held that on a true construction of that part the employee concerned is entitled to an opportunity of representation or hearing. With great respect to the learned Judges of Calcutta High Court we find overselves unable to agree with the view expressed in the case cited. 12. We have held that on a true construction of that part the employee concerned is entitled to an opportunity of representation or hearing. With great respect to the learned Judges of Calcutta High Court we find overselves unable to agree with the view expressed in the case cited. 12. Learned counsel then invited our attention to another decision of that court in Union of India v. P.C. Chowdhary, Appeal No. 1022 of 1974 decided on 16-7-1976 (Cal.), where the Bench distinguished the Divisional Personnel Officer's case (supra) on the ground that that case related to a matter falling under Rule 14(l) and "the decision is expressly confined to cases contemplated in clause (i) and shall not be applicable to cases under clauses (ii) and (iii) of the rule." We find ourselves unable to appreciate the, distinction. The Supreme Court in the Divisional Personnel Officer (supra) laid down the true scope and effect of the last part of the rule. If that part applies to all the sub-clauses of Rule 14, as we have held, then the ratio of that case applies to cases falling under clause (ii) of the rule as well. We have accordingly reached the conclusion that the case of Divisional Personnel Officer (supra) fully applies in the instant case and the orders of the disciplinary authority were bad for non-compliance of the provisions of the last part of the rule. 13. The appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed but we make no order as to costs.