JUDGMENT K.N. Goyal, J. - When the writ 'petition was presented on 1711984 the standing counsel was directed to produce the relevant record so that the petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage. Inspite of repeated opportunities being given, the Standing Counsel has not been able to produce the relevant record. We, therefore, have no option but to rely the averments of the writ petition and the annexures thereto. 2. The petitioner was a Council House Guard. He was suspended by order, annexure3, passed on behalf of the Governor. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry. At the end of the enquiry an order of removal from service was passed against the petitioner on 1211984, annexure1, which purports to be an order of the Government. It refers to the charges and also to the fact that the enquiry officer had submitted a report after enquiry and further concludes that the Government, after considering the chargesheet and the petitioner's reply thereto and the enquiry officer's report and all other relevant facts, had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was proved guilty of the charges levelled against him and, accordingly, it was decided to remove him from the services. 3. According to the petitioner's averments no enquiry report was annexed to the order, annexure1, nor was the enquiry report otherwise furnished to him. 4. In B. P. Chaurasia v. State of U.P. and others 1983 (1) Lucknow Civil Decisions, 169) it was held by a Division Bench of this court in similar circumstances as follows: Although under the amended Article 311 (2) of constitution it is not necessary to give to delinquent a second opportunity of showing cause against the proposed penalty, and only one opportunity is given at the stage of enquiry yet the proceeding being quasijudicial in nature, it is expected that the final order would be speaking order. The order, annexure12, is a nonspeaking order inasmuch as it does not discuss either the evidence or the reasons for the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal, nor does it make the inquiry report a part of the dismissal order. Mere statement of conclusion is different from reasons for the conclusion. The order merely states the conclusion, without giving any reason therefor and without enclosing the enquiry report either. As such it is a nonspeaking order. Mere statement of conclusion is different from reasons for the conclusion. The order merely states the conclusion, without giving any reason therefor and without enclosing the enquiry report either. As such it is a nonspeaking order. It must, therefore, be held to be illegal. 5. As the facts of this case are on all fours with those of the case of B.P. Chaurasia (supra), the impugned order, annexure1 cannot be held to be legal. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 12.1.1984, annexure1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. It will, however, be open to the competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. (Petition allowed)