Judgment 1. The petitioner who was initially appointed on 11th January, 1988 as clerk in the Bihar Rajya Ayurvedic & Unani Chikitsa Parishad, Patna against the leave vacancy, was given regular appointment on 12th May, 1988 and confirmed as Typist-cum-Clerk. Subsequently, his service was terminated on 15th June, 1990 on the ground that procedure for appointment-was not followed and the petitioner was overage at the time of appointment. Said order was challenged by petitioner in C.W.J.C.No.12772/93, which was disposed of on 6th February, 1988. The order of termination was quashed on the ground of violation of rules of natural justice, the petitioner having not given any opportunity and the case was remitted to the authority to pass order on hearing the petitioner. So far as arrears of salary is concerned, it was observed that the decision can be taken after the order which may be passed by the authorities. 2. It was only thereafter, the petitioner was charge sheeted on 24th April. 98 and proceeded departmentally, whereinafter on the basis of enquiry report, he has again been removed from service, vide order dated 22nd August, 1998. 3. It will be evident from the charge sheet that the authorities cited a number of persons as prosecution witnesses, but no separate list of prosecution evidence was cited therein. 4. At paragraph No.22 of the writ petition, it has been specifically pleaded that no evidence was led before the Enquiry Officer when the petitioner appeared nor any witness was examined. Without giving such opportunity the Enquiry Officer submitted report, on the basis of which the order of removal was issued. 5. According to the Counsel for the Respondent Parishad, the appointment of petitioner being illegal, it was for the petitioner to produce evidence in his support to justify the appointment as legal and the matriculation certificate in support of his age. He having failed to produce such documents, in spite of opportunity given to him, the impugned order was passed, on the basis of enquiry report. 6. As in the present case, I find that the Respondents proceeded against the petitioner departmentaily, after framing charge, the Respondents should have followed the total procedure, as is being followed in a departmental proceeding. The petitioner should have been forwarded with the list of evidences/witnesses and such evidences and statement of witnesses should have been led/taken in presence of the petitioner. The petitioner should have been forwarded with the list of evidences/witnesses and such evidences and statement of witnesses should have been led/taken in presence of the petitioner. Such procedure having not followed, the enquiry report cannot be held to be legal, nor the order should have been passed on the basis of such report. 7. In the circumstances, I set aside the order dated 22nd August, 1998(An-nexure-14) and remit the matter to the authorities for decision afresh, if the authorities do not allege any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, they may recall the charges and in such case they may ask the petitioner to refer alleging illegality in the matter of appointment. if any such notice is issued then it will be for the petitioner to justify the legality and propriety of his appointment. 8. A decision, in this respect be taken after following the procedure and opportunity to petitioner, on an early date, preferably witnin three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. The question of payment of back wages may be determined thereafter. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.