JUDGMENT - D.R. DHANUKA, J.:---By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is impugning order of dismissal from service passed by the Commissioner of Police and the appellate and revisional orders passed by the competent authority in relation thereto. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this petition are as under : 2. At the material time the petitioner was working as a Head Constable attached to Bhoiwada Police Station. On 11th of June, 1987, the Commissioner of Police passed an order dismissing the petitioner from services as the petitioner was held guilty of having committed certain acts of misconduct in respect whereof a departmental enquiry was held and charges imputed to the petitioner were held proved. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Government of Maharashtra, as provided under the rules framed by the appropriate authority under the Bombay Police Act, 1951. By a letter dated 18th August, 1988, the petitioner was informed that the appellate authority had gone through the papers and come to the conclusion that out of the three charges levelled against the petitioner, two were established. It was also stated in the said letter that the order of dismissal passed by the Commissioner of Police was, therefore, substituted by an order of removal from service. As provided under the statutory rules, the petitioner preferred a revision application against the said order before the Government of Maharashtra. By a letter dated 28th February, 1989 (Exhibit `E' to the petition), the petitioner was informed by the Government of Maharashtra that the said revision application was dismissed by the Government as it was of the view that the conclusions set out in the order dated 18th August 1988 passed in appeal were correct. 3. By this petition filed by the petitioner on 19th April, 1989, the petitioner has challenged the above referred orders passed by the Commissioner of Police, the Appellate Authority as well as the revisional authority referred to hereinabove on various grounds set out in the petition. 4. In paragraph 18 of the petition, the petitioner has specifically averred that the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner before the competent authority under the statutory rules against the above referred order of dismissal was decided by the Appellate Authority without granting hearing to the petitioner. 4. In paragraph 18 of the petition, the petitioner has specifically averred that the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner before the competent authority under the statutory rules against the above referred order of dismissal was decided by the Appellate Authority without granting hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has made a similar grievance against the revisional authority also. The petitioner has further averred, in paragraph 18 of the petition, that the appellate authority and the revisional authority had exercised their statutory powers in a casual manner in as such as the said statutory authorities were bound to give reasons in support of their orders. The petitioner has contended that the impugned orders do not disclose any reasons. In other words, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority on the ground that the said orders were passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. It is too well-settled that the principles of natural justice must be followed by any authority passing any order which visits the person affected with civil consequences. The above-referred averments made in paragraph 18 of the petition are not controverted in the affidavit-in-reply and it shall have to be held that both the appellate and the revisional orders were passed by the authorities in breach of natural justice for not granting personal hearing to the petitioner. It is also well-settled that the statutory authority must state reasons in support of its conclusions and pass a speaking order in the matter of this nature and the principles obligating stating of reasons by the appropriate authority is part of principle audi alteram partem. The concerned authorities have not followed the above principles and passed orders without discussing the merits of the case and recording of reasons. 5. The petitioner has also assailed the order passed by the Commissioner of Police on various grounds. The petitioner has contended that the disciplinary enquiry was not ordered by the Commissioner of Police who was the appointing authority and thus the entire enquiry should be treated as vitiated. Mr. 5. The petitioner has also assailed the order passed by the Commissioner of Police on various grounds. The petitioner has contended that the disciplinary enquiry was not ordered by the Commissioner of Police who was the appointing authority and thus the entire enquiry should be treated as vitiated. Mr. Surana, the learned Counsel for the respondents, has contended that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was in fact ordered by the Commissioner of Police and under the rules the Commissioner of Police could authorise any officer of the police, senior in rank to that of the petitioner, to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner. Since I am quashing and setting aside the appellate and the revisional orders in view of no personal hearing having been granted to the petitioner and no reasons having been recorded, it is not necessary to spend precious judicial time on examining these interesting questions at this stage. I have no doubt that the learned Counsel for the petitioner will highlight each of these aspects during the course of personal hearing before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority will now pass a speaking order dealing with each of the points which may be urged on behalf of the petitioner at the hearing of the statutory appeal. 6. In light of the above discussion, I pass the following order : --- 7. The appellate order and the revisional order in respect whereof intimation was given to the petitioner by letters dated 18th August 1988 and 28th February 1989 (copies whereof are Exhibits `D' and `E' to the writ petition) are hereby quashed and set aside on the limited ground as aforesaid. Since the appellate order itself is quashed, the petitioner is entitled to be heard by the appellate authority and no direction need be given to the revisional authority. The Appellate Authority shall grant personal hearing to the petitioner and shall pass a speaking order after observing the principles of natural justice as stated above. For the moment, the order passed by the Commissioner of Police on 11th of June 1987 shall remain in force until it is set aside or modified or until the appeal is decided in pursuance of this order of remand. The incident in respect whereof the enquiry was started against the petitioner is a very old one of 30th September 1st October, 1986. The incident in respect whereof the enquiry was started against the petitioner is a very old one of 30th September 1st October, 1986. The Appellate Authority shall, therefore, dispose of the appeal within a period of 8 weeks from today after fixing a date of hearing as may be convenient to it so as to leave two/three weeks time to the petitioner or his Advocate to make full preparation for the hearing. The petitioner shall not be evicted from the quarters in his occupation till the disposal of the appeal and for a period of six weeks from the date of the intimation of the order passed in appeal. The above time is granted to the petitioner to pursue his further legal remedies if the decision in the appeal happens to be against him. 8. Since the petitioner has succeeded in this writ petition on the ground that the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice and the petitioner is without any job and is facing undue financial hardship, the respondent No. 1 is directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,600/- to the petitioner within one month from today as compensation. The said amount of Rs. 3,600/- shall not be refundable by the petitioner, in view of my finding that the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice while passing the appellate and revisional orders impugned in this petition. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly. -----