In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution six petitioners in a joint petition challenge six different orders passed in respect of each of the petitioners which are annexed together in Annexure ‘A’ and for further order restraining the respondents from evicting the petitioners from railway quarters No. 1270/4. Bailaspur R.S in Madhya Pradesh in the occupation of the petitioners. The petitioners joined the Railway Administration and were employed in different positions in the Eastern Railway. The petitioners state that there were certain agitation by Loco Running Staff Association and pursuant to the said agitation petitioners were not able to discharge their duties in the usual manner from 29th of January, 1981 upto 24th of February, 1981. That is the case of petitioners in the petition. In the affidavit in-reply, however, petitioners have stated that they were on sick leave during that period. The case of the respondents, is, that the petitioners were staff employed in the Loco Running Section of the Eastern Railway and there was an unauthorised and illegal strike from the 29th of January, 1981 causing great hardship to the people and to the movement of goods and in which the petitioners took leading parts and were parties to various violent and illegal action which resulted in the complete disruption of the Loco Running Section and in view of the nature of the agitation and conduct of the petitioners the case of the respondent's further, is, that they had to be summarily removed from service under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1968 and it was not considered by the disciplinary authority, in view of the circumstances which have been mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition that it would not be reasonably practicable to hold enquiries into the matter provided under those rules. Therefore, the subject matter of challenge in this application and in several other applications are the several orders of removals under Rule 14(ii) of the aforesaid rules. The petitioners contend that they were loyal staff and the petitioners conduct were not at all illegal.

2. I shall deal with the petitioners’ past record later.

In the aforesaid view of the matter the removal orders were, according to the petitioners, in violation of the provision of the rules and without fulfilling the conditions precedent required for the exercise of the powers under the rules. The petitioners contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case the disciplinary authority was not satisfied and/or could not be utislied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold enquiries in the manner provided under those rules. The petitioners further contend that no reasons were recorded in writing and in any event the purported reasons could not be considered to be any reason at all. The petitioners were not heard on any alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioners nor were toe petitioners heard as to the nature of the punishments to be imposed upon the petitioners. The petitioners further contend that there was no satisfaction and there could not have been any satisfaction, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the disciplinary authority that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any enquiry in the manner provided under the rules. In the premises, it was contended that the mandatory provisions for the application of those rules had not at all been fulfilled. The reasons were not recorded. In any event, the alleged or purported reasons were not reasons at all. There was no application of mind. The reasons were vague clod the orders were passed in arbitrary manner. It was further urged that Rule 14(ii) enjoined exercise of quasi-judicial powers and such powers should be exercised by speaking orders which were not done in the facts and circumstances of the case. The respondents on their other hand, contended otherwise.

3. Therefore, the main and indeed the sole question that requires to be considered