Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against an order dated 15-9-1989 passed by the respondent No.2, as contained in Annexure-1 of the writ application, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed to be removed from services with effect from 15-9 1989 as also the order dated 31-3-1990 passed by the respondent No.3 and as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application, whereby and whereuader the said authority rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner at the relevant time had been working in the post of office Superintendent He is said to be the General Secretary of the National institute of Foundry and Forge Technology Employees Union, 4. By the impugned order dated 15-9-1989, the respondent No.2 directed the removal of the petitioner from services purported to be in terms of the provisions contained in Clause 13 (II) and 13 (III) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules applicable to the case of the petitioner. 5. In the said order, no reason was assigned as to why the respondent no.2 was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to follow the procedures in the said Rule or why the reasons of security so warrant from following such procedure. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the respondent No.3, by an order dated 31-3-1990, as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application dismissed the said appeal. 7. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed wherein, it was contended that the behaviour of the petitioner throughout his career had not been good and he had been threatening the high officers of the respondent no, 1 including the respondent No.2, and thus, it was not possible to held such an enquiry. 8. According to the respondents, reasons for dispensing with the general provisions of holding an enquiry have been recorded by the respondent No.2 in a minutes which is contained in Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit. 9. Mr. 8. According to the respondents, reasons for dispensing with the general provisions of holding an enquiry have been recorded by the respondent No.2 in a minutes which is contained in Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit. 9. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that although, it may be permissible in law to dispense with the disciplinary proceedings, it is incumbent upon the authorities concerned to state the reasons therefor and communicate the same to the concerned employee in order to enable him to contend before the appellate authority that the reasons assigned by the Disciplinary authority were not correct. 10. Mr. Sinha, further contended that there are materials to show that the statements made in Annexure-E to the Counter affidavit are not correct. The learned counsel also contended that in view ot the fact that allegations were made by the respondent No.2 himself, there does not appears to be any reason for dispensing with the normal procedure of holding an enquiry in as much as, before the Inquiry Officer, the respondent No.2 could at least examine himself. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that from a perusal of the appellate order as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application, it would appear that the appellate authority took into consideration the facts which were not taken into consideration by the respondent No.2 in reeording his reasons for dispensing with the enquiry which is contained in Annexure-E to the counter affidavit. 12. The learned counsel, in this connection has strongly relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others V/s. Tulsiram Patel, air 1985 SC 1416 13. Mr. Debi Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on he other hand, submitted that it is not necessary to record the reasons for dispensing with an enquiry in the order imposing penalty upon the delinquent employee but the same can also be separately recorded. 14. Mr. Debi Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on he other hand, submitted that it is not necessary to record the reasons for dispensing with an enquiry in the order imposing penalty upon the delinquent employee but the same can also be separately recorded. 14. According to the learned counsel, from a perusal of Annexure-E to the counter affidavit, it would be evident, that there were sufficient reasons for the respondent No.2 to take recourse to the provisions of Rules 13 (II)and 13 (III) of the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules the learned counsel has in this connection placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Shivaji Atmaji Sawant V/s. State of maharashtra and another, AIR 1986 SC 617 , 15. Rules 13 (II) and 13 (III) of the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules applicable to the petitioner read as follows :- Rule 13 (II) and 13 (III) "special Procedure in certain cases".-Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 7, 8 (11) B, 10, 11 and 12 in case where. . . . . . . . . . . . (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . Where the employees is abscondiag or where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practical to follow the procedure in the said rule and, (iii Where reasons of security to warrant ; the Disciplinary Authority may remove or dismiss an employee from service without following the procedure laid down in rule 8-12. " 16. In Union of India and others V/s. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 , the Supreme Court held that recording of the reasons for dispensing with the enquiry must preceed the order imposing the penalty. However, the same need not find a place in the final order. 17. The Supreme Court further held that the matter of reasonable practicability of holding an enquiry is a matter assessment to be made by the disciplinary authority, but the disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary enquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of an ulterior motive or merely in order to avoid to holding of an enquiry or because the department case like Government servant is weak and must tall. 18. In. 18. In. Shivaji Atmaji Sawant v State of Maharashtra and anr, AIR 1980 SC 617, it was held that where reason for dispensing with enquiry served separately upon the dismissed employees which were recorded later, the same by itself will not vitiate the order of disciplinary enquiry, it the same was otherwise justified. 19. In that case, the Supreme Court considered its earlier decisions in Satyavirs case, AIR 1986 SC 555 , as also Tulsiram Patels case (supra ). 20. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, it can not be said that it was incumbent upon the respondent no.2 to state the reasons for dispensing with the enquiry in the impagned order of removal of the petitioner itself. 21. However, the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application reads as follows :- "i have taken note of the fact that Shri Divanjee the the a Office supdt. refused to receive a sealed envelop from the Director, delivered to him by the S P. O. in the presence of two witnesses. From previous office files.1 find that Sari Divanjee has been in the habit of using abusive and threatening language in his capacity of General Secretary of the Employees Association. This was so even several years ago, before the present Director joined NIFFT i. e. when Shri Khanna was the Director Institute. Once around 1977-78 he was even convicted by Court of law to undergo 3 months imprisonment and a tine of Rs.230/-, though this conviction was set aside on appeal. Even his act of refusal to accept a sealed envelop from the Director on 15-9-1989 was an act of insubordination liable to disciplinary action. Consideration all facts, I am satisfied that his dismissal from the services of NIFFT is justified. " 22. From the perusal of the said order, it is evident that the appellate authority has taken into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner as also the tact that he refused to accept a sealed envelop from the Director on 15-9-1989 which was said to be an act of insubordination. 23. Evidently, in relation to the aforementioned findings, no prior notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal befoie the respondent no.3 only as against the order of removal dated 15-9-1989, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. 24. 23. Evidently, in relation to the aforementioned findings, no prior notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal befoie the respondent no.3 only as against the order of removal dated 15-9-1989, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. 24. It was, therefore, not permissible for the appellate authority to consider some other materials obtaining as against the petitioner behind his back and take into consideration the same without giving a further opportunity to the petitioner. 25. From a perusal of the said appellate order, it further appears that no other reason has been assigned by the respondent No.2. 26. In Ramchander V/s. Union of India and others. , AIR 1986 SC 1173 , the supreme Court held t- "in the absence of a requirement in the statute or the rules, there is no duty cast on appellate authority to give reasons where the order is one of affirmance. But, Rule 22 (2) of the Railway Servants rules in express terms requires the Railway Board to record its finding on the three aspects stated therein. Rule 22 (2) provides that in the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 6 or enhancing aay penalty imposed under the said rufe, the appellate authority shall "consider" as to the matters indicated therein. The word "consider" has different shades of meaning and must in Rule 22 (2) in the context in which it appears mean an objective consideration by the Railway Board after due application of mind which implies the giving of reasons for its decision. " It further observed :- "it is of utmost importance after second amendment as interpreted by the majority in Tulsiram Patels case, (1985) 3 SCC 398 , that the appellate Authority must not only give a hearing to the Government servant concerned but also pass a reasonable order dealing with the contentions raised by him in the appeal. Reasoned decisions by tribunals, such as the Railway Board in the present case, will promote public confidence in the administrative process. An objective consideration is possible only if the delinquent servant is heard and given a chance to jutisfy the Authority regarding the final orders that may be passed on his appeal. Consideration of fairplay and justice also require that such a personal hearing should be given". 27. An objective consideration is possible only if the delinquent servant is heard and given a chance to jutisfy the Authority regarding the final orders that may be passed on his appeal. Consideration of fairplay and justice also require that such a personal hearing should be given". 27. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the appellate order, as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application cannot be sustained. The respondent no.3 is, therefore, directed to consider the memo of appeal of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal. 28. It may, if an opportunity is sought for, may also given a personal hearing to the petitioner.28. It may, if an opportunity sought for, may also given a personal hearing to the petitioner. 29. It is further made clear that in the event, the appellate authority intends to use any other material as against the petitioner, sufficient notice therefor must be given to him and the principles of natural justice in that regard shall be complied with. 30. This application is allowed to the aforementioned extent. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Writ application allowed.