PARITOSH KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner, Prabhu Nath Tewari, a Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force had challenged an order of removal from service (although the said order has never been served upon him) and obtained a Civil Order as far back on January 28, 1985. ( 2 ) THE Chief Security Officer and the Assistant Security Officer, Eastern Railway, 3, Koilaghata Street has been impleaded along with the Union of India and they have been served repeatedly with the copy of the writ petition and twice affidavit of service have been affirmed and filed, once on March 29, 1985 and lately in terms of my order on November 10, 1985, still then, there is no appearance on behalf of the Eastern Railway Administrations. ( 3 ) IT is really unfortunate that the railway administration remains unrepresented in this type of removal case, when the disciplinary authority did not conduct any enquiry whatsoever, before taking drastic step of removal, adjudging the writ petitioner "as mentally imbalanced person. " ( 4 ) IN the writ petition, it has been categorically asserted that in the month of February 1963, the petitioner fell ill and underwent treatment under a private medical practitioner outside the Railway Hospital and not under any Railway doctor, and after recovery, the petitioner was, however, allowed to join his duties, but the Assistant Security Officer, being respondent No. 4, had issued some show cause notice and charge-sheet and the petitioner duly replied to the same and the petitioner produced medical certificate from "sri Janata Ayurvedic Ausadhalaya" dated December 13, 1982, showing that he was in normal good health and could perform his duties as before. But it appears that the disciplinary authority, without referring the case before the D. M. O. as per Office Memo of the Chief Personnel Officer No. E/173/2, dated June 18, 1963 wherein it has been specifically directed that medical certificate granted by registered medical practitioner of integrated system of Medicine for the purpose of granting of leave, etc. , should be accepted. The said Circular has been disclosed in the supplementary affidavit by the writ petitioner which was affirmed on November 10, 1987. , should be accepted. The said Circular has been disclosed in the supplementary affidavit by the writ petitioner which was affirmed on November 10, 1987. ( 5 ) IT is further the case of the writ petitioner that in case there was any difficulty on the part of the competent authority or the disciplinary authority to accept such certificate, it was incumbent upon the said authority to refer the case to the D. M. O. for advice or investigation and then deal with it, as the circumstances may require. in terms of the said circular, which has not been done or in the alternative, the writ petitioner should have been directed to appear before any "medical Board" to show his fitness before taking any drastic action of removal from service. ( 6 ) MR. Uday Sankar Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner has drawn my attention to Section 9 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, which provide for dismissal and suspension and reduction in rank of any member of the Force, which is subject to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution and subject to such rules as the Central Government might frame from time to time and no order of removal could be passed in respect of the petitioner except in disciplinary enquiry, which has not been done in the facts of the present case and accordingly, the order of removal from service is entitled to be set aside by issue of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari by this Court. ( 7 ) IN my opinion, from the pleading of the writ petition it appears that there was no proper enquiry conducted by the respondents before adjudging the writ petitioner as mentally imbalanced and, as such, the final order of removal which was passed, though not formally communicated to the writ petitioner cannot be given effect to. ( 8 ) SUCH averments although had been made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition, have not been controverted by any affidavit-in-opposition, although repeated opportunities were give to the Railway administration. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, the only course open to this Court is to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of removal of the writ petitioner by issue of appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, the only course open to this Court is to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of removal of the writ petitioner by issue of appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari. ( 10 ) LET a Writ in the nature of Certiorari issue quashing the impugned order of removal. ( 11 ) LET a consequential Writ in the nature of Mandamus also issue commanding the respondents not to give any effect or further effect to the same in any manner whatsoever. ( 12 ) SINCE the order of removal is set aside, the writ petitioner will be entitled to join service forthwith and will be entitled to all arrear salaries and emoluments, in accordance with law, within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. ( 13 ) THIS will not prevent the respondents to proceed against the writ petitioner with proper material and in accordance with law, if they are so advised. ( 14 ) SINCE there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents, let a plain copy of this order be handed over to the learned Advocate on Record on behalf of the petitioner, on the usual undertaking to apply for and obtain certified copy of this judgment. Petition allowed