Short Note : 1. By this petition the petitioner, S.D. Kolte had prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for purposes of quashing the order passed by the Municipal Council, Betul and also approval of the said order of the State of M.P. The petitioner was serving as an overseer under the Municipal Council. 2. Held: The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not challenge the departmental enquiry held as against the petitioner being defective in any manner He confined his submissions to the stage of approval accorded by the State Government to the dismissal order under section 94 (4) of the Municipalities Act. According to him it was imperative on the part of the State Government to afford an opportunity of oral hearing to the petitioner before according approval to the approval to the dismissal order. A perusal of section 94 (4) of the Act does not indicate in any manner that an opportunity of a personal hearing is to be afforded before according approval by the State Government. Therefore, the point now arises for consideration is that even in the absence of that can intention be inferred on the part of the legislature for affording an oral hearing It was not in dispute before the Court that the petitioner was given oral hearing before the dismissing authority. There is no rule of natural justice that at every stage a person is entitled to a personal hearing. The petitioner had full opportunity in every respect before the dismissing authority. Therefore to contend that at the second stage of approval by the State Government a further personal bearing is necessary is not correct. F.N. Rov v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1957 SC 648 , C.A.D. Souza v. State of M.P., 1962 JLJ 97, relied on. 3. As regards the second contention that the order of approval of the State Government shows no application of mind while according the same in the absence of no reasons given, has no substance. This Court does not think it is obligatory on the State Government to give reasons in support of an order while according approval of the same. After an enquiry was held against the petitioner the punishing authority having heard him gave a detailed order holding the charges proved against him. This Court does not think it is obligatory on the State Government to give reasons in support of an order while according approval of the same. After an enquiry was held against the petitioner the punishing authority having heard him gave a detailed order holding the charges proved against him. The entire material of the enquiry having been placed before the State Government to make up its mind whether to accord approval or not, it looks unreasonable to contend that the State Government must also give reasons while according approval of the dismissal order passed by respondent No 2. State of Madras v. A.R. Srinivasan, AIR 1966 SC 1827 , relied on. Petition dismissed.