Judgment :- This order shall govern these two writ petitions. The first one challenges the notice of termination and the second one challenges the order of termination of the petitioner by the respondents. 2. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also looked into the affidavits filed in support of the petitions and also the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. .3. Admittedly, the petitioner, who joined the Central Reserve Police Force in the year 1992, was working under the second respondent during the relevant time. He was referred to the Medical Board based on the opinion given by the Base Hospital Doctor at Delhi. He was sent to Hyderabad for medical check up, where a certificate was issued on 13. 2005, stating that 92 days rest was required for his illness. Before that, he was sent to the Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad and the Superintendent of Government Hospital had issued a letter to the Base Hospital, Hyderabad, stating that a long time treatment is required. While the matter stood thus, on 19. 2005, the second respondent has referred him to the medical board. Following the same, on 110. 2005, the impugned notice was served upon him proposing to invalidate him from service based on the report submitted by the medical board on 15.09.2005. While the matter stood thus, he gave a representation and even after receipt of the same, an order came to be passed by the second respondent on 20.11.2005, terminating the service of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, these two writ petitions have been brought forth by the petitioner. 4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel would stress that originally, the notice was served upon him, proposing to invalidate him from service; that the same was based on the report given by the Medical Board, dated 19. Under these circumstances, these two writ petitions have been brought forth by the petitioner. 4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel would stress that originally, the notice was served upon him, proposing to invalidate him from service; that the same was based on the report given by the Medical Board, dated 19. 2005; that on receipt of the same, the petitioner made a representation; that while the matter stood thus, even without giving a copy of the report, thereby enabling him to make any further representation or to prefer an appeal against the decision of the medical board within a stipulated time, the order of termination has been passed on 20.11.2005 and thus, it is a case where the principles of natural justice have been offended and that no opportunity to prefer an appeal against the decision of the Medical Board was given and that the second respondent, who has issued notice proposing to invalidate him, has acted simply on the basis of the report of the medical board and has terminated the service of the petitioner and hence, since both the orders are infirm, they have got to be set aside. 5. The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents. According to him, the second respondent has taken a correct decision and has passed the first order on the basis of the report of the medical board and secondly, after representation was given by the petitioner, it was also considered and since, there was no merit on the same, the second order of termination has been passed and hence, both the writ petitions have got to be dismissed. .6. After careful consideration of the submissions made and looking into the materials available, the court is of the considered opinion that orders have got to be passed in favour of the petitioner. It is not in controversy that the petitioner was in service during the relevant time. He was referred to the medical board by the second respondent and the report was also received from the medical board on 19. 2005. Following the same, the first order, dated 110. 2005, proposing to invalidate him from service, was issued based on the report of the medical board dated 15.09.2005. The copy of the order, dated 110. He was referred to the medical board by the second respondent and the report was also received from the medical board on 19. 2005. Following the same, the first order, dated 110. 2005, proposing to invalidate him from service, was issued based on the report of the medical board dated 15.09.2005. The copy of the order, dated 110. 2005, which is placed in the hands of this court, reads as follows: ."If you wish to make any representation or appeal against the decision of the Medical Board, you may do so in writing together with requisite evidence in support of your case within one month to the undersigned for taking further course of action in the matter." 7. Needless to say that, nowhere the order, dated 110. 2005, states that the copy of report of the medical board was ever served upon the petitioner and thus, the report was well within the hands of the department, but no copy was served upon him. Without the copy of the report of the medical board, the petitioner could not make any representation or appeal against the decision of the medical board. Even without serving the copy of the report of the medical board, the second order of termination came to be passed. Thus, it would be quite clear that it is a glaring case where the principles of natural justice have been offended. Hence, without any hesitation whatsoever, both the orders have got to be set aside. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are set aside. There is no impediment for the respondents to further proceed with the matter, following the procedural formalities, as one expected in law and as per the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected WPMPs are closed.