JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - The petitioner was employed as Train's clerk in Eastern Railway and was posted at Moghal Sarai. He was prosecuted for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B of the Penal Code for taking delivery of coal from Railway by producing forged receipts. 2. The prosecution failed to establish the charges and the petitioner was acquitted on 27-3-1978. Meanwhile, by an order dated 22-4-76 the Divisional Superintendent, Danapur, removed the petitioner from service in exercise of his powers under Rule 14 (ii) of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The petitioner's appeal against the order failed. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order removing him from service. 3. The petitioner's main grievance is that he was not afforded any opportunity of explanation or hearing before the impugned order was passed. Rule 14 (ii) confers power on the Disciplinary Authority to remove even a permanent employee from service, if it 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 under the Rules, provided before passing the order of removal the Disciplinary Authority is required to consider the circumstances of the case. The question whether opportunity of hearing and explanation need be given to an employee by the Disciplinary Authority before passing order under Rule 14 (ii) was considered by this Court in Indra Deo Singh v. Union of India, 1977 Lab IC 105, Union of India v. Rajendra Prasad Srivastava (1977) 3 All LR 243: (1977 Lab IC NOC 75) and K. S. Bhatnagar v. Divisional Superintendent, N.E. Rly. 1978 Lab IC 193. It was held that before removing an employee under Rule 14 (ii) of the Rules t.he Disciplinary Authority must comply with the principles of natural justice and it must give opportunity to the Railway servant before inflicting penalty. The Rule itself does not provide for giving any opportunity to the Railway Servant; but, having regard to the drastic nature of the power conferred on the Disciplinary Authority in derogation to the Constitution as contemplated by Article 311 of the Constitution, this Court has taken the view that in the absence of statutory provisions, the principles of natural justice would be attracted. The disciplinary authority must comply with the principle of natural justice by giving opportunity to the Government servants. 4. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity before the impugned order of removal was passed. We, accordingly, hold that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice which is rendered null and void. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents brought to our notice a decision of this Court in Arjun v. Union of India (1983) 9 All LR 60), where the Division Bench refused to interfere with an order of removal issued under Rule 14 (ii) of the Rules. In Arjun's case the Railway servant was dismissed under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution. The interpretation of Rule 14 (ii) and specially the expression "the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case" before passing of an order was not considered in that case. The question of opportunity being given to a Railway servant before the issue of an order under Rule 14 (ii) was neither raised nor considered in that case and as such, the decision in Arjun's case (1983-3 All LR 60) is not applicable to the instant case. 6. In the result, we allow the petition and quash the impugned order dated 22-4-76 and 18-11-80. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.