JUDGMENT K.N. SINGH, J. 1. THE petitioner was in the employment of the North Eastern Railway as Guard in 'B' grade. On 24th April, 1976, while he was on duty as Guard on the Bareilly Kasganj passengers train a special squad made checking of the passengers, travelling by that train, it found a number of persons travelling without ticket. Soma of the passengers alleged that they had paid money to the petitioner and he had permitted them to travel without ticket. On the report of the checking squad the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Izat Nagar, issued an order dated 27th April, 1976, removing the petitioner from service in exercise of his powers under rule 14 (ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. THE petitioner preferred appeal before the Divisional Superintendent, Bareilly, but the appeal was dismissed by the order dated 13/15th November, 1976. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the aforesaid two orders. 2. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was removed from service on serious charges of misconduct, without holding any inquiry or without affording any opportunity of defence. The respondents concede that no departmental proceeding was held in the allegations made against the petitioner. No charges were framed, no inquiry was held and no finding was recorded. The respondents, however, assert that the appointing authority has removed the petitioner under rule 14(ii) as it was satisfied that it was not practicable to hold inquiry against the petitioner in the manner provided in the rules. Rule 14 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, is in the following terms : "14. Special procedure in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 9 to 13. Rule 14 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, is in the following terms : "14. Special procedure in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 9 to 13. (i) here 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 inquiry 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 inquiry in the manner provided in the 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." Rules 9 and 13 prescribe procedure for taking disciplinary action against a railway servant. Rule 14 (ii) confer drastic powers on the disciplinary authority to dispense with the holding of inquiry for reasons recorded in writing that it is not practicable to hold enquiry and further before passing orders the disciplinary authority is required to consider the circumstance of the case. It is, therefore, necessary that even if the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that it is not reasonably practical to hold an inquiry into the charges must give an opportunity to the railway servant before inflicting the penalty. In Union of of India v. Rajendra Prasad(1977 Alld. Law Report (Vol. 1,3) p. 243), a Division Bench held that the question of penalty has to be considered objectively after giving opportunity of hearing to the party concerned, and any orders passed under any of the sub-rules of rule 14 in breach of the requirements of the last portion of the rule would render it void. It further held that on a true construction of the last portion of rule 14 the employee concerned is entitled to an opportunity of making the representation or of hearing before the final order is passed. 3. It further held that on a true construction of the last portion of rule 14 the employee concerned is entitled to an opportunity of making the representation or of hearing before the final order is passed. 3. IN the instant case, it is not disputed that the petitioner was not given any kind of opportunity of making representation or hearing before the disciplinary authority passed the order of removal under rule 14. Moreover, the disciplinary authority was under a legal obligation to record reasons as to why it was not practicable to hold inquiry into the charges on which the petitioner was removed from service. Since no reasons have been recorded, the order of removal is vitiated on this ground also. 4. THE appellate authority failed to consider the aforesaid questions and it reiterated, the order of the appointing authority without considering the requirement of rule 14. THE order of the appellate authority is also vitiated for the same reasons. We are constrained to observe that the petitioner's appeal was not considered on merits, instead the appellate authority dismissed the appeal in a cavalier manner on extraneous grounds namely to implement 20 point programme. In the result, we allow the petition and quash the order of the Divisional Commercial Superintendent dated 27th April, 1976 and the order of the Divisional Superintendent dated 15th November, 1976. THE petitioner is entitled to his costs.