Judgment Udai Pratap Singh, J. The petitioner, a Fitter Khalasi under the Loco Foreman. Chopan, in the services of the Eastern Railway has by way or his writ petition challenged the order dated 13.11.1984 contained in Annexure-5, whereby, he has been removed from the service by the Assistant Mechanical Engineer (P), Eastern Railway, Dhanbad in exercise of his power under Rule 14 (1) of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1968. 2. In March 1976 the petitioner was arrested in a Criminal case On 13.5.1977 he was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge., Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh for an offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sentenced to undergo One year's rigours imprisonment. After his release from Jail, on 25.9.1977 he approached the Loco Foreman, Chopan with a request to allow him to join his duties. The petitioner was advised to approach the Divisional Mechanical Engineer (P), Dhanbad. He was asked to await the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal no, 612 of 1977 and was put under suspension. In September 1981 the High Court of Madhya Pradesh maintained his conviction under section 323 of the Indian penal Code and altered the sentence to the period undergone by him. In December, 1981 the petitioner along with a copy of the judgment approached the Loco Foreman with a request that he may be allowed to join his duties. His case was forwarded to the Divisional Mechanical Engineer (P), Dhanbad and he recommended that the petitioner be allowed to join his duties. Instead of allowing him to join the duties, the Assistant Mechanical Engineer (P), Dhanbad issued a charge sheet on 28.4.1982. The charge was that he absented unauthorisedly from his duties since 14.3.1976, the day when had been arrested. A departmental enquiry was initiated. The Enquiry Officer, by his report dated 15.11.1983 held that the charges were not established against him, therefore, On representation filed by the petitioner in January, 1984 the Assistant Mechanical Engineer (P), Dhanbad by his letter dated 13.1.1984 allowed him to join his duties. He also recommended to the Assistant Personnel Officer that the petitioner should be shown as under suspension from the date of his arrest and be treated as pay charged. He also recommended to the Assistant Personnel Officer that the petitioner should be shown as under suspension from the date of his arrest and be treated as pay charged. A formal office order dated 20.4.1984 was issued by the Assistant Personnel order of petitioner Officer, Dhanbad conveying the Competent authority and the was placed back on his duty joined the duty on 14.1.1984. 3. In July, 1984 the Assistant Mechanical Engineer (P), Dhanbad issued another charge-sheet and the charges were:- (a) "For remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty from 19.3.1976 to 25.9.1977; and (b) For concealing the fact of his arrest from the administration". The petitioner made a representation in August, 1984 in reply to the above charges. A departmental enquiry was ordered to be initiated in September, 1984. The petitioner, thereafter did Dot receive any further communication in the matter, Instead of proceeding with the departmental enquiry, the Assistant Mechanical Engineer(P), Dhanbad issued a memorandum on 12.10.84 sent to the petitioner in a registered cover with acknowledgement due proposing the penalty of removal in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 14(1) of the 1968 Rules and the petitioner was required to file his representation in defence within fifteen days from the receipt of the said memorandum. The above memorandum dated 12.10.1984, which was required to be sent by registered post with acknowledgement due was, in fact, banded over to the petitioner on 29.11.1984, but before this memorandum dated 12.10.1984, proposing penalty of removal in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 14(1) of the Rules, 1968 was received by the petitioner on 29.11.1984, the impugned order dated 13.11.1984 contained in Annxure-5 ordering removal from the service with effect from 20.11.1984 was served on him on 22. 11.1984. The petitioner was, therefore, denied the opportunity of making his representation against the proposed penalty of removal from service under rule 14(1) of the Rules, 1968. 4. The fact that the petitioner received the order of removal (Annexure-5) on 22.11.1984 before he could have had any opportunity of making representation in pursuance of the memorandum dated 12.10.1984 proposing penalty of removal served on 29.11.1984. a week after 'the receipt of the order of removal, was not denied by the respondents. 4. The fact that the petitioner received the order of removal (Annexure-5) on 22.11.1984 before he could have had any opportunity of making representation in pursuance of the memorandum dated 12.10.1984 proposing penalty of removal served on 29.11.1984. a week after 'the receipt of the order of removal, was not denied by the respondents. The impugned order is, therefore, fit to be quashed on this ground alone and it is not necessary to deal with the other questions of double jeopardy, mala fide, non-application of mind in passing the impugned order and the question of propriety and sufficiency of penalty raised by the petitioner's counsel. 5. In this view, the order of removal of the petitioner from service contained in Annexure-5 is quashed and the petitioner will be deemed to be in service from the date of removal with all consequential benefits he may be entitled Rules. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed but there will be no order as to costs Petition allowed.