J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (Code for short hereinafter) the appellant/ plaintiff has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge (S. D.) at Junagadh on 2 in Special Civil Suit No. 199 of 1976. ( 2 ) THE appellant herein is the original plaintiff who had to initiate legal battle by filing the above suit against the respondent/original defendant-Union of India for declaration that the order of removal from service passed against him is null and void and resultant relief for arrears of pay and allowance etc. The plaintiff inter alia contended that he was working as a Khalasi-Painter in Traffic Workshop in Western Railway at Junagadh. He was charge-sheeted by the defendant-railway administration alleging that he had committed misconduct by remaining absent from service without permission for a period of about 19 months. Inquiry Officer was appointed. Inquiry was conducted. The plaintiff was found guilty by the Inquiry Officer. The report of the Inquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. A show-cause notice was issued to him for removal from service. Ultimately an order of removal was passed. Therefore the plaintiff rushed to the court. ( 3 ) THE defendant-railway administration appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement at Ex. 14 raising various contentions. The defendant inter alia contended that the plaintiff had committed serious misconduct and act of indiscipline and therefore he was punished departmentally under the relevant rules. It was denied that the inquiry/ proceedings were null and void. The action taken by the defendant was defended. The defendant further contended that in view of the serious and grave misconduct and act of indiscipline committed by the palintiff the removal order was justified. Allegations made in the plaint are traversed and the entire suit was challenged. ( 4 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the pleading of parties issues were settled. ( 5 ) THE plaintiff relied on his own evidence at Ex. 40. Defendant-railway administration did not examine any witness. The parties relied on documentary evidence of which reference will be made by this Court at the appropriate stage hereinafter. ( 5 ) THE plaintiff relied on his own evidence at Ex. 40. Defendant-railway administration did not examine any witness. The parties relied on documentary evidence of which reference will be made by this Court at the appropriate stage hereinafter. ( 6 ) THE Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record was pleased to hold that the impugned order of removal was not illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The suit notice was held to be legal and valid. Ultimately the suit came to be dismissed with costs on 2-5-1980. ( 7 ) BEING dissatisfied by the said judgment and decree the original plaintiff has now come up before this Court challenging its legality and validity by invoking the aids of provision of Section 96 of the Code. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant/original plaintiff has seriously criticised the approach of the Trial Court. It is contended that the Trial Court has committed serious illegality in dismissing the suit. This submission is repelled by the learned Counsel for the respondent/defendant-railway admini- stration. ( 9 ) IN order to appreciate the merits of the rival contentions it would be necessary to have a close look into the relevant salient facts giving rise to the present appeal. ( 10 ) THE original plaintiff Lavjee Punja was working as a Khalasi-Painter in Traffic Workshop of the Western Railway at Junagadh in the cadre of Class IV service. The plaintiff was charge-sheeted on 11/16-8-1971 as he unauthorisedly remained absent for the period commencing from 7-1-1970 till the date of the charge-sheet by the defendant. Departmental inquiry was conducted. Inquiry Officer was appointed. The charge-sheet is produced at Ex. 19. It is a cyclostyled charge-sheet. At the foot of the 4th page the charge is mentioned which reads as under: he has absented himself without permission since 7 today which is a breach of discipline. He has not observed the formalities to send the Private Doctors Certificate to AMO JND etc. ( 11 ) THE show-cause notice is also in printed form which is produced at Ex. 20. Report of the Inquiry Officer which is dated 21-8-1972 is produced at Ex. 24. The report of the Inquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority by passing an order on 18-7-1973 which is produced at Ex. 21 By virtue of Ex. ( 11 ) THE show-cause notice is also in printed form which is produced at Ex. 20. Report of the Inquiry Officer which is dated 21-8-1972 is produced at Ex. 24. The report of the Inquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority by passing an order on 18-7-1973 which is produced at Ex. 21 By virtue of Ex. 21 the plaintiff came to be removed from the service with immediate effect. ( 12 ) ORAL evidence of the plaintiff was led at Ex. 25 The plaintiff was a Class IV servant and he was aged about 40 years when his evidence was recorded in the Trial Court on 23-1-1980. The defendant-railway administration has not examined any witness. The plaintiff denied that he had unauthorisedly absented himself from the service. According to his evidence he was sick and he was undergoing treatment as an indoor patient initially in the Railway Hospital at Bhavnagar and thereafter he was undergoing medical treatment of a private doctor. He has specifically stated in his evidence that he was not given an opportunity of hearing in the departmental proceedings. ( 13 ) ORDINARILY the court will be at loath to interfere with the findings reached by the disciplinary authority in the departmenatal proceedings. However there are special circumstances on record of the present case which are not seriously appreciated and examined by the Trial Court. The impugned dismissal order dated 18-7-1973 at Ex. 21 is illegal being totally a non-speaking order. Unfortunately the Disciplinary Authority has not applied its mind to the facts of the case. In a cyclo-styled form in which four lines are mentioned by virtue of which the fate of a railway employee is sealed. It would be interesting to reproduce the exact tenor of the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority as per Ex. 21:removed from service from the date of issue of this Nip for the. charges mentioned in S. P. 5 of No. even Dt. 11/16-8-1971 and proved in DAR enquiry. ( 14 ) AN employee of the defendant railway administration came to be removed from the services by virtue of the aforesaid order passed by the disciplinary authority. Undoubtedly it is highly shocking and startling order which evidently radiates an imprint of non-application of mind not only to the relevant facts but to the relevant service rules also. ( 14 ) AN employee of the defendant railway administration came to be removed from the services by virtue of the aforesaid order passed by the disciplinary authority. Undoubtedly it is highly shocking and startling order which evidently radiates an imprint of non-application of mind not only to the relevant facts but to the relevant service rules also. ( 15 ) THE impugned removal order is not only cryptic but is also silent about the facts and relevant rules which led to the departmental inquiry and culminated into economic death of an employee. Such an order which is cryptic non-speaking and highly vulnerable can never be sustained. Such an order is nothing but a nullity. So the removal of the plaintiff from the service who unfortunately died during the pendency of this appeal on or about 26 is a non-speaking one and nullity. ( 16 ) THE inquiry report is produced at Ex. 24 which is dated 21-6-1972. It would be interesting to reproduce the finding of the Inquiry Officer in his this report which reads as under:he reported sick on 7-1-1970 under private doctors treatment but failed to inform the AMO JND and send the private doctors certificate to the AMO JND. He is still in sickness and not submitted any medical certificate in support of his sickness after 21-3-1970. ( 17 ) A plain perusal of the aforesaid finding of the Inquiry Officer leaves no any manner of doubt that it is very cryptic and contrary to the provisions of Rule 9 (25) (d) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). Ex facie the inquiry report also indicated not only an indifference on the part of the Inquiry Officer but non-application of mind to the vital facts. A plain reading of the finding as such does not prove any act of indiscipline or misconduct. No provision is pointed out whereby a person could be penalised departmentally if he does not submit medical certificate of a private doctor to the authority concerned. In the charge-sheet no provision is mentioned under which the plaintiff was departmentally charge-sheeted. Be as it may. When the perpermission is not obtained by an employee of the railway administration at the best the empolyee would not be entitled to claim his salary during the period of his absence which is not authorised. In the charge-sheet no provision is mentioned under which the plaintiff was departmentally charge-sheeted. Be as it may. When the perpermission is not obtained by an employee of the railway administration at the best the empolyee would not be entitled to claim his salary during the period of his absence which is not authorised. To remain absent from the employment on the ground of sickness without permission in advance is not made an act of indiscipline or misconduct in any specific rule or under any administrative instruction. No such rule decision or instruction is pointed out before this Court. ( 18 ) THE Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority have failed to consider the aspect as to whether the delinquent in the departmental proceeding was prevented from reporting for duty by reason of his illness. Even if it is presumed to be an act of misconduct or indiscipline that was the lynch-pin in the entire departmental proceedings to which the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority both remained indifferent. There is no any manner of doubt that any employee much less an employee of the defendant-railway administration shall not stand benefited by remaining absent on the ground of sickness without any reason. Whether absence from service on the ground of illness as pleaded by the plaintiff was justified or whether it was possible for the plaintiff to seek permission well in advance for undergoing medical treatment was possible or not and whether the absence from service even if it is held to be unauthorised would call for or entail the extreme penalty like removal from service etc. There are the questions which are very vital and germane to the issue involved in the departmental proceedings. Unfortunately the disciplinary authority basing his report on inquiry report which is ex facie illegal remained not only indifferent to the material facts of the departmental proceedings but remained oblivious to the rule position resulting into grave miscarriage of justice which requires to be set right. Unfortunately the disciplinary authority basing his report on inquiry report which is ex facie illegal remained not only indifferent to the material facts of the departmental proceedings but remained oblivious to the rule position resulting into grave miscarriage of justice which requires to be set right. ( 19 ) AS provided in Rule 9 (25) of the Rules it is obligatory on the part of the Inquiry Officer after conclusion of the inquiry to submit a report which shall include: (1) articles of charge and the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour; (2) the defence of the railway servant in respect of each articles of charge; (3) assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge; and (4) the findings on each article of charge and the reasons therefor. The report of the Inquiry Officer is prepared in flagrant violation of the aforesaid rule position which is the basis of the removal order which is challenged in the suit. Apart from that the disciplinary authority deciding the fate including the economic death of an employee of a gaint (sic) like railway administration must address itself to the fundamental principles of natural justice much less the rules as aforesaid. It needs no emphasis that the authority even in a domestic Tribunal cannot pass non-speaking and cryptic order as per its whims. Any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. It cannot be said even for a moment that the impugned order of removal is legal. No reasons are mentioned. Even no material facts are noted in the impugned order. Moreover in the present case there is a clear infraction of the provisions of the Rule 9 (25) of the Rules as aforesaid. Therefore on all counts the impugned order of removal from service dated 18 passed by the defendant-railway administration produced at Ex. 21 is illegal null and void. ( 20 ) WITH due respect to the learned Trial Judge the approach of the Trial Court in reaching to the conclusions is not only perverse but is illegal. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the relevant material emerging from the record of the case and also the aforesaid rule position. The Trial Court has committed a serious illegality in dismissing the suit. . The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the relevant material emerging from the record of the case and also the aforesaid rule position. The Trial Court has committed a serious illegality in dismissing the suit. . ( 21 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant provisions of the Rules this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned Order of removal dated 18 Ex. 21 is illegal null and void. The Trial Court has committed a serious illegality in confirming the order of dismissal and dismissing the suit. Therefore the impugned Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is required to be decreed. ( 22 ) IT is hereby declared that the impugned order of removal dated 18 passed by the defendant-railway administration is illegal and null and void. It is therefore quashed. The plaintiff is entitled to and the defendant-railway administration shall be liable to pay Rs. 10 494. 5 by way of arrears of pay and allowances etc. from the date of removal i. e. 18 till the date of the suit i. e. 19 The defendant-railway administration shall also pay full salary alongwith the permissible allowances and other monetary benefits to the plaintiffs from the date of the suit till the date of death of the original plaintiff (Lavjee Punja who died during the pendency of this appeal) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the suit till date. The defendant-railway administration shall also pay the arrears of Family Pension permissible under the Rules together with incidental terminal service benefits to the plaintiffs with interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the payment is made. The defendant-railway administration shall pay entire arrears of salary and family pension etc. amount on or before 10- 12- 1991. ( 23 ) IN the result the impugned order is set aside. The suit is decreed with costs to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed with costs. Decree shall be drawn accordingly. (NVA) Appeal partly allowed. .