JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - The petitioner Ramesh Kumar has challenged the validity of the order dated 7-2-81 (Annexure 11) dismissing the petitioner from the post of Designation Fireman Gr. C/Varanasi from service with effect from 7-2-81 The aforesaid order had been passed by the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, Lucknow in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 14 (ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Engine cleaner on 21-6-1972. Subsequently he was promoted as Fireman Grade C with effect from 7th May, 1977. The petitioner was reported to have participated in an illegal strike in January 1981. Consequent upon the report to that effect being made, the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, Lucknow dismissed the petitioner from service holding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in the aforesaid Rules. He found that the petitioner was not entitled to be given any opportunity of hearing. Against the order of the Assistant Mechanical Engineer dated 7-2-81, the petitioner preferred an appeal, the appeal met with the same fate. 3. The argument made before us by the learned counsel was that the petitioner had since not been given an opportunity before the order under rule 14 (ii) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 had been passed by the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, the impugned order was invalid. The learned counsels contention was that although Rule 14 (i) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 was ultra vires of the Constitution but assuming it to be valid, the Assistant Mechanical Engineer was required to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before finding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry in the petitioners matter. Sri Lal Ji Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Railway contended to the contrary that the question as to whether it is reasonable to hold an enquiry or not is dependent on the satisfaction of the punishing authority and that the Court has no power to intervene in such a matter. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of opinion that Sri G.C. Gahranas submission made in support of the petitioner is well founded. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of opinion that Sri G.C. Gahranas submission made in support of the petitioner is well founded. Before applying Rule 14 (ii) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968,.it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority (i) to record reasons m writing (ii) that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. -In the instant case although reasons have been recorded by.the Disciplinary Authority that it was not reasonable to hold an enquiry but even for doing so, the petitioner Was entitled to a notice being given. As the said order had been passed, by the Disciplinary Authority without hearing the petitioner, the consequence is that the order dismissing hint from service is 'liable to be set aside. In Union of India v. Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, 1977 ALR 294 a Division Bench was Called upon to consider a similar controversy. Hie view , taken was that the employee concerned was necessary to be heard before the order under Rule 14 (ii) was made. For the view, taken, reliance had been placed toy a Division Bench on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the Divisional Personal Officer, Southern Railway and another v. T.R. Challappan, AIR 1975 SC 2216 . It is true as was pointed out by the Railways learned counsel that the Said case was on Rule 14 (i) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 but the principle laid down in that case could be applied to interpret Rule 14 (ii) as well. In Maksudan Pathak v. Security Officer, Eastern Railway, Mughalsarai and another, 1981. Labour and Industrial Cases 831, Full Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the scope of Rule 47 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 which is in para material with Rule 14 (ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. In that Case the Full Bench 'aid down that it was incumbent for the authority to record his reasons in writing as to why it was not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure for holding the enquiry. However, this Case is of not much assistance to us in deciding the controversy inasmuch as the Disciplinary Authority had in the instant case, given reasons for dismissing the petitioner without giving an opportunity. But before this order could be made the petitioner was entitled to be heard. However, this Case is of not much assistance to us in deciding the controversy inasmuch as the Disciplinary Authority had in the instant case, given reasons for dismissing the petitioner without giving an opportunity. But before this order could be made the petitioner was entitled to be heard. This was admittedly not done. As a result whereof impugned order dated 7-2-81 is liable to be quashed. 5. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated 7-2-81 and that of the appellants authority Bated 6-9-81 are quashed. In the circumstances of the present case, parties shall bear their own costs. 6. Since the case does not involve any substantial question of law of general importance needing to be decided by the Supreme Court the oral prayer for leave made by Sri Lal ji Sinha, learned counsel for the Railways is refused.