JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioner in all these writ applications are the employees of Health Department. Their services have been terminated on the basis of report submitted by Five Men Committee consituted under the direction of High Court in L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003. The report has put the services of the employees in three categories, irregular, illegal, and forged. Petitioners who have been put in either illegal or forged category, are recommended for termination from service. 2. Facts of almost all the cases disclose that petitioners were appointed long time back right from 1969 to 1987 and thereafter. In some of the cases, appointment of the petitioners were declared illegal on the ground that appointment was made by way of regularization from daily wages employees by an authority who was not competent to make appointment. In some of the cases it has been stated that appointments were not made against sanctioned posts, following the procedure for regular and legal appointment, as such appointments are illegal. In some of the cases, it is stated that appointment letters, on the basis of which petitioners were appointed were not issued from the office of those authorities, who are said to be appointing authority as there is no such entry in register of the concerned office. Appointments made on the basis of such appointment letters have been put in the forged category. 3. It is essential that background of these cases should be discussed before analyzing the grounds taken by the petitioner for challenging the enquiry report/ impugned orders and reply submitted by the State to counter the submission made by the petitioners. 4. Petitioners were directly appointed on Class III posts and Class IV posts and thereafter regularized on their posts. In most of the cases, after their appointments, petitioners continued for more than ten years. They were regularized, their service books were opened and they were made permanent. In some of the cases, petitioners also received benefits of time bound promotion. Subsequently their appointments were questioned by the authorities and enquires were made. On account of questioning of their appointment and continuation of enquiry, salaries of some of the petitioners were withheld, as such, they approached the High Court for a direction to pay their salaries by filing writ applications. Subsequently their appointments were questioned by the authorities and enquires were made. On account of questioning of their appointment and continuation of enquiry, salaries of some of the petitioners were withheld, as such, they approached the High Court for a direction to pay their salaries by filing writ applications. They got relief from the High Court and directions were issued for payment of salary, as it had been stopped without any finding recorded against genuineness or legality of their appointment. Petitioners thereafter started getting their salary. The enquiry proceeded and in most of the cases finally termination orders were issued on the ground that on the basis of forged letters appointments were made, appointment letters were issued by an incompetent authority against unsanctioned posts and also that appointments were made without observing the selection process for legal appointment, without advertising the posts, giving proper opportunity to eligible candi- dates to participate. A number of writ applications were filed challenging the termination orders. Those writ applications were decided by an order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4702 of 2003 and analogous cases. Some of the cases in which termination orders were not quashed Letters Patent Appeals were filed. Appeals were also filed by the State against orders quashing termination orders. Some of the writ applications, which were filed challenging the termination order had remained pending. Finally L.P.As. preferred by the State as well as petitioners and pending writ applications, were heard analogous. L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003, became the leading case which was heard analogous with several L.P.As. and writ petitions. A marathon arguments were advanced by the petitioners as well as the State. Several questions were raised including the equity as petitioners have continued in their service for several years and in most of the cases their age for any new appointment had expired. Finally all these matters were disposed of without deciding the merit of the case giving direction to the State to decide the cases of the petitioners in the light of judgment of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and Ors., [2006(2) P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 363]. Direction was to find out that which of the cases come in the category of irregular appointments. Uma Devi and Ors., [2006(2) P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 363]. Direction was to find out that which of the cases come in the category of irregular appointments. In case of irregular appointment, steps be taken to regularize services of such irregularly appointed employees as one time measure and so far the cases coming in the category of illegal and forged, no steps is to be taken for their continuation in service. The direction was that in case irregularly appointed employees have worked for ten years or more against a duly sanctioned posts, without covers of orders of courts or tribunal, their services be regularized initiating a process for regularization within six months from the date of judgment. Further direction was to constitute a committee for holding enquiry. In the light of the direction in L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases the State of Bihar, Department of Health constituted five men committee for examining the nature and status of appointments of affected persons. It is pertinent to state here at this juncture that during pendency of the L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases before the High Court, the State Government has undertaken similar task to find out the status of appointments of petitioners and similar employees by constituting three men committee. This committee had also submitted report categorizing appointments of affected employees in three categories; illegal, irregular and forged. However, that report was not considered by the L.P.A. Bench and the matters were disposed of for fresh consideration of factual aspect, in the light of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Uma Devi (supra). Five men committee had to complete its task within six months from the date of the order, but it was not done and the time was extended by the High Court for further three months. The committee did not complete in the enquiry within the extended time, but thereafter no prayer for extension of time was made and the enquiry continued for longer period. During pendency of enquiry, Chairman of the committee was changed. Two of its members abstained from participating in the enquiry and they did not sign the enquiry report. Final report signed by three men committee was submitted as report of five men committee. During pendency of enquiry, Chairman of the committee was changed. Two of its members abstained from participating in the enquiry and they did not sign the enquiry report. Final report signed by three men committee was submitted as report of five men committee. On the basis of this report, petitioners were either issued termination letters or simply they were restrained from discharging their duty. In some of the cases despite enquiry report, treated their service as illegal or forged, concerned Civil Surgeon treated them as genuinely appointed. In other cases, though petitioners earlier termination order had been quashed by the writ court they were not allowed to join, on account of pendency of appeal. The situation was that some of the persons who were though directed to be reinstated by the writ court, were not allowed to be reinstated. Some of the persons in the light of writ courts order had been allowed to join, but after submission of the enquiry report, again they were removed from their service. In some of the cases enquiry committee did not come out with any finding or it was not communicated to the petitioners even then they were treated to be illegally appointed and removed from the service, or if earlier working were removed. Petitioners prayer in all these writ applications is for quashing the enquiry report submitted by five men committee and for a direction to reinstate them in their service, from which they were removed after 20 years, 18 years or more of their initial appointment. 5. The first ground taken by the petitioner to assailing the report submitted by five men committee is that it is not a report of the committee of the five men committee as it has been signed by only three members. It has also been submitted that two of its members abstained themselves from enquiry as in a most illegal and arbitrary manner, it was being conducted. These members were opposed to the manner of enquiry and also refused to sign. Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that they were terminated from their services, on the basis of such a report, which has not been prepared after holding proper enquiry. In reply to this, counsel appearing for the State has submitted that since out of five members, majority of the members have signed the report it cannot be a ground for assailing the enquiry report. In reply to this, counsel appearing for the State has submitted that since out of five members, majority of the members have signed the report it cannot be a ground for assailing the enquiry report. Counsel appearing for the State has not answered the question as to why the two members refused to participate and what was the difficulty which other two members have faced in signing the report, if at all it was an outcome of their joint enquiry. In support of this fact that enquiry was conducted in a most illegal, arbitrary and haphazard manner. The petitioners counsel have cited different examples: (i) Counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7065 of 2009 has stated that enquiry was conducted in a most illegal, arbitrary and haphazard manner, persons including the petitioners were appointed by same authority i.e. Dr. B.N. Jha, Assistant Director, Health Services, Filaria Bihar. Name of persons have been given in paragraph 22 of the writ application. In paragraph 23, it is stated that out of those appointed persons, services of seven persons were held illegal including the petitioners by the enquiry committee, and other persons were put In irregular category, and subsequently reinstated. This shows that there was no fixed yardstick for deciding the cases of appointment. Similarly appointed persons were treated differently. No reply was advanced by the State in this regard. (ii) In C.W.J.C. No. 6750 of 2009, it has been stated that petitioners were terminated from service and one Umesh Kumar Singh, who was also appointed on the same day by the Civil Surgeon- cum-Chief Medical Officer was retained in service. This order was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 4128 of 2003, which was allowed. However, the petitioners joining was not accepted by the Civil Surgeon. L.P.A. was preferred by the State against the order, passed in the writ application and the five men committee report has been submitted in which the committee has found the case of 91 persons as irregular, 228 persons as illegal and 358 including the petitioners as forged on the ground that no such appointment letters were issued from the concerned office. Other persons, who were appointed with the petitioners namely Umesh Kumar Singh is still continuing in service. Other persons, who were appointed with the petitioners namely Umesh Kumar Singh is still continuing in service. (iii) In C.WJ.C. No. 1733 of 2008, the petitioner has stated that the enquiry committee has put his appointment in forged category, although during pendency of the L.P.A. 966 of 2003 on the direction of the Division Bench also an enquiry was conducted in which the petitioners case was put in irregular category. Whatsoever be the reason behind this change in the report and present categorization, that has not been disclosed. Appointments have been changed from one category to other, for no obvious reasons. (iv) Petitioner in C.WJ.C. No. 1576 of 2009 have stated that he was appointed after following due procedure for appointment. Posts were advertised interview was held and posts were also sanctioned. After interview 22 persons were selected and appointed in the same transaction. 21 persons are still working and the petitioner has been terminated stating that his appointment is illegal. (v) Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 2830 of 2008 has stated that he was appointed in 1985, thereafter he was regularized and confirmed. His service book was opened, finding his appointment as genuine. For no reason he was terminated from his service though in different enquiries conducted for this very purpose, it was found genuine. The present enquiry report has put his appointment in the category of illegal appointment. Similar is the statement of petitioners in C.WJ.C. No. 9197 of 2008, C.WJ.C. No. 2008 of 2008, C.WJ.C. No. 16989 of 2008 and C.WJ.C. No. 17234 of 2008. It has also been stated that in the counter affidavit of the State, filed in L.P.A. Bench, appointment of petitioners in these writ applications were treated irregular. But in the five men committee report, their services have been put in the category of illegal appointment. 6. In sum and substance the petitioners have stated that the enquiry has been conducted without looking into any of the records relating to the appointment of the petitioners and without giving any opportunity to them to defend their cases. Enquiry report has been prepared without any application of mind. The enquiry committee fixed a guideline and thereafter cases have been put in one or other categories. Enquiry report has been prepared without any application of mind. The enquiry committee fixed a guideline and thereafter cases have been put in one or other categories. This statement can be substantiated from enquiry report itself as in cases of some of the employees, it has specifically been mentioned, records not placed, even then appointment have been held either illegal or forged. 7. Mr. S.K. Ghosh, A.A.G.-II has stated that the difference in categorization of appointments in between the report which was submitted during pendency of the L.P.As. and the enquiry report which has been submitted by the five men committee, is not of much relevance. These two enquiry reports cannot and should not be equated or compared for the reason that on earlier occasion, the enquiry report was not submitted in the light of the guidelines mentioned in Uma Devi case reported decision of Apex Court (supra). The five men committee prepared its report, as per the direction of the Division Bench, in the light of Uma Devis case, specially the guidelines as mentioned in paragraph 44 of the Apex Court decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and Ors. [2006(2) P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 363]. Paragraph-44 of the judgment is as follows: "One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra) and B.N. Nagrajan (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles, settled by this Court in the case above referred to and in the light of this judgment. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles, settled by this Court in the case above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitution scheme." 8. On consideration of the submission of the rival parties what I find that guidelines which was before the five men committee and the guideline which was fixed by the three men committee during pendency of the case for considering factual aspects of the appointments and to put their services in any of three categories i.e. illegal, irregular and forged were more or less same except that in paragraph 44, it has been stated that irregularly appointed persons, if worked for ten years or more, but not under the cover of courts orders or of tribunals, be regularized, as one time measure. 9. In the present case most of the petitioners have continued on their posts for more than 15, 18 and 20 years. So far ten years of initial service is concerned, they continued without there being any cover of the courts or tribunals order. Their appointments were questioned after they remained in service for ten years or more. In that view of the matter also, it cannot be said that before the five men committee or three men committee two different guidelines were there, for reaching to the conclu- sion, whether services of the appointees are irregular, illegal or forged. Their appointments were questioned after they remained in service for ten years or more. In that view of the matter also, it cannot be said that before the five men committee or three men committee two different guidelines were there, for reaching to the conclu- sion, whether services of the appointees are irregular, illegal or forged. In no case appointment of same persons can be treated at one stage as irregular and in the next stage as forged, and if that was done reasons should have been assigned by the authorities for changing their own view. 10. I find substance in the submission made by the petitioners that five men committee enquiry report has been prepared in a most casual manner, without properly looking into the records and without there having any application of mind. This view is further strengthened by this fact that at the time of hearing of the writ applications, petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1257 of 2008, C.W.J.C. No. 3122 of 2008 and C.W.J.C. No. 13563 of 2008 made a prayer for withdrawn of their writ applications as they have been reinstated in their service during the pendency of writ applications ignoring five men committees report. In the report they had been put in the category of illegal/ forged appointee. 11. The petitioners have also challenged the enquiry report on the ground that it has been prepared in violation of rule of natural justice. Petitioners case is that no individual notice was issued to them. The public notice was also not published for giving information to every one, that on such and such date their cases are going to be considered, so that they could have defended their cases properly. Since valuable right of the petitioner like appointment and their liveli hood was going to be considered, it was essential that they should have been noticed. 12. Mr. S.K. Ghosh placing reliance on the decision in the case of Lalan Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Others reported in [1995(2) P.L.J.R. 309], (2009)5 S.C.C. 65 (State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and Ors.), has stated that in a case where the appointment is ab initio void, there is no requirement of individual notice. Mr. Vs. The State of Bihar and Others reported in [1995(2) P.L.J.R. 309], (2009)5 S.C.C. 65 (State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and Ors.), has stated that in a case where the appointment is ab initio void, there is no requirement of individual notice. Mr. Ghosh has submitted that since the appointments were made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the rules framed for appointment and ignoring essential requirements as such appointments were ab initio illegal. As decided by the Apex Court in such cases individual notice is unwarranted. What is required is simple knowledge of this fact and that was there, to the employees. I find that decision relied upon by the A.A.G.-II has no application in the present case as it relates to regularization of daily wagers/ad hoc appointees. Paragraphs which have been relied upon, there is no discussion in the specific term relating to an enquiry going on to examine the illegality, genuineness of an appointment after more than 20 years of service. The finding do not disclose whether in such cases order of termination be recorded without assigning any opportunity to such appointees. In one way this is an admission on the part of the State that the petitioners were not noticed properly and enquiry has been conducted behind their back. Right, which has accrued in favour of the petitioners on account of their appointment and continuation for such a long time, in my view, could not have been taken away in such an arbitrary and illegal manner. At least the petitioners were entitled to have an opportunity to place their individual cases. In case of given opportunity, whatever would have been the result, at least no allegations could have been made of any violation of rule of natural justice, by the petitioners. The allegations, I find to be correct, as such an important and valuable right, could not have been taken away in such an arbitrary manner. 13. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh representing the case of petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 2830 of 2008, has stated that the petitioners were appointed in 1985. They were regularized, confirmed and their service books opened. After different intervals enquiries were made regarding the genuineness of petitioners appointment and each time it was found to be genuine. 13. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh representing the case of petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 2830 of 2008, has stated that the petitioners were appointed in 1985. They were regularized, confirmed and their service books opened. After different intervals enquiries were made regarding the genuineness of petitioners appointment and each time it was found to be genuine. Since the petitioners were regularized in service and worked for more than 18 years, they could not have been terminated without following the procedure as provided under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. An employee once confirmed on his post, could not have been terminated without initiating departmental proceeding. A permanent employees service can only be terminated by following the procedures, laid down in the rules for removing a permanent employee and that procedure must have been followed as accorded within Article 311(2) of the Constitution. It has also been submitted that since the allegation were made regarding securing appointment on the basis of forged appointment letters, or appointments made without following the procedure for a legal appointment. In such cases termination order could have been issued only after proper enquiry, and not without any notice to the incumbent to defend the charges framed against them. 14. Petitioners counsel have placed reliance on two recent judgments reported h 2008(1) P.L.J.R. 840 (Ram Krishna Dubey Vs. State of Bihar & Others) [:2008 (2) BLJ 16 (PHC)] and 2009(2) P.L.J.R. 869 (State of Bihar through the Secretary, Government of Bihar, in the Department of Energy, Sinchai Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna Vs. Indra Mohan Roy) [:2009(1) BLJ 189 (PHC)]. Relying upon the decision reported in 2008(1) P.L.J.R. 840, the Division Bench in the decision reported in 2009 (2)P.L.J.R. 869 has held that "apermanent employees" services can only be terminated by following the procedure laid in Rules for removal of a permanent employees and that procedure must be accorded within Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. It has further been held that the allegation that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of forged appointment letter is not sustainable without holding any enquiry, as such allegation has to be proved in accordance with the Rules. Forging of appointment letter is a misconduct and this cannot be assumed without holding proper enquiry. 15. It has further been held that the allegation that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of forged appointment letter is not sustainable without holding any enquiry, as such allegation has to be proved in accordance with the Rules. Forging of appointment letter is a misconduct and this cannot be assumed without holding proper enquiry. 15. Counsel appearing for the State has replied this question also in the same manner that when the appointment itself was made in total disregard of constitutional scheme and recruitment rules frmaed by the State, in such cases protection provided under Article 311 of the Constitution of India cannot be made available. 16. I find that confirmation or regularization of service of an appointee is a confirmation of his fact that the authorities are satisfied regarding legality of initial appointment. Once an employee confirmed in his service, automatically he gets protection as provided under Article 311 of the Constitution. In case, later on the authorities are of the opinion that they should again be convinced regarding the genuineness of the appointment, only one mode is open for them that is to initiate a departmental proceeding, following the procedure as provided under the Service Conditions Rules for termination of service. Since the authorities in all these cases have not adopted the procedure before terminating the service of petitioners and have passed orders of termination without assigning any reason, it cannot be considered as a legal procedure adopted by the authorities. Action of the State and its authorities cannot be considered legal. 17. Mr. Banwari Sharma, counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 6575 of 2009 has submitted that the State and its authorities have wrongly stated that appointments were made on Class IV or Class III posts in violation of the Government Circulars/guidelines/rules. At the time when the appointments of most of the petitioners were made the circular issued by the State Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, contained in Letter No.3/R-1-103/ 73 (Personnel) 1664 dated 3.12.1980 was in vogue. This related to procedure of appointment in Class IV posts. The Department of Health, State of Bihar, in consonance with the Personnel Departments letter had issued letter no.05/A(App)20-1/88 Vol-2 574 (Health) dated 26.6.1989, relating to the procedure and requirements to be followed for appointment on Class IV posts. This related to procedure of appointment in Class IV posts. The Department of Health, State of Bihar, in consonance with the Personnel Departments letter had issued letter no.05/A(App)20-1/88 Vol-2 574 (Health) dated 26.6.1989, relating to the procedure and requirements to be followed for appointment on Class IV posts. Appointments could have been made, only against sanctioned posts following procedure like, posts be advertised, interview conducted, reservation roster followed and appointment be made by competent authority. At the relevant time the Civil Surgeon or the Regional Deputy Direction were competent authority to make appointment. Petitioners case is that following the procedure they were appointed. Since the counter affidavits have not been filed in each and every cases denying the statement made in the individual writ application as such there is no contradiction to these statements. 18. The petitioners have also stated that at present there are more than 4000 posts vacant in the department and the L.P.A. Bench had taken notice of this fact. This fact was also admitted by the State in its counter affidavit filed before the L.P.A. Bench. After bifurcation of the State several employees cadre had shifted to Jharkhand State and situation of vacancies has not changed till the date. In this circumstances, the exercise which is being done by the authorities of the Health Department for terminating the service of such employees who have remained in service for more than 15 to 20 years is nothing but inhuman. It has also been stated that while examining the illegality of appointment, it required to be balanced on the platform of human right. A human, who is an employee, cannot be prosecuted with illegality of his appointment continuously throughout his tenure in his employment, when no action was taken by the authority immediately after such appointments. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Shakti Shankar Singh, [2009 (3) P.L.J.R., 483]. 19. I find that similar nature of cases filed by the petitioners against same en- quiry report have been allowed by this Court quashing the termination order as well as the enquiry report on the ground of discrimination, as persons appointed in same transaction are still continuing in their service, while the petitioners have been terminated on account of categorizing their appointments as illegal and forged. 20. 20. Another ground for quashing the enquiry report and termination orders issued in case of some writ application is that no reason has been assigned for treating the service of the petitioners as illega, irregular or forged. The Supreme Court in its decision in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh reported in [ (2009)5 S.C.C. 65 ], it has been held that failure to give reason amount to denial of justice. Reasons are life link in between the decision maker to the controversy and question and the decision and conclusion arrived at. It find that unreported decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4797 of 2009, C.W.J.C. No. 4872 of 2009, C.W.J.C. No. 5730 of 2009 and C.W.J.C. No. 6431 of 2009 are identical to the case of the petitioners similar reliefs were prayed in those writ applications also, there is no reason for not allowing similar relief to these petitioners as in similar circumstances petitioners have also been terminated from their service. 21. Counsel for the petitioners have further stated that in case of forged appointment, it was incumbent upon the authorities to examine the actual appointment letters and not the dispatch registers. The signature of the authorities should have been verified by handwriting expert, but that has not been done. Appointment on the basis of forged appointment letters is a serious allegation and it should not have been handled so lightly. In support of this contention, the petitioners have placed reliance on a decision in the case of Subodh Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.. [2001(3) P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 187]. The Apex Court in the similar circumstances has held that in case of appointments on the basis of take appointments letters, what should have been really examined is letters of appointments and not mere register through which appointment letters were dispatched. If the letters of appointment issued to the appellant was fake one there was certainly, a cause of disciplinary action, but not by merely looking to the register such conclusion could be inferred. For numbers noted therein may have been as a result of mistake. Therefore, the enquiry should have been as to the actual nature of the order or the letter of appointment issued to the appellant. For numbers noted therein may have been as a result of mistake. Therefore, the enquiry should have been as to the actual nature of the order or the letter of appointment issued to the appellant. That enquiry was not done and the Apex Court in these circumstances had set aside the orders of termination and issued a direction to reinstate the petitioners in service. 22. Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the decision in Uma Devis case has been the guideline for categorizing petitioners appointment as illegal, and forged and for issuance of orders of termination. The principle decided in this case has been mentioned in paragraph 44 of this decision. In paragraph 45 of Uma Devis case it has been held that principle settled in earlier decisions, which are running counter to what has been held herein, principle settled in this decision will stand redundant of their status as precedent. Counsel for the State has placed reliance on all these decisions in which principles settled earlier to the decision of Uma Devis case as such they cannot be considered as a good decisions. 23. I find that almost all the petitioners were confirmed, absorbed and regularized in their service prior to the impugned enquiry, petitioners had earlier challenged their termination orders and thus termination orders were quashed by this Court against which L.P.A. was preferred by the State. The L.P.A. Bench did not set aside the decision of Single Judge whereby termination orders were quashed. Simply a direction was issued to conduct an enquiry. Once a judgment is delivered, its effect can be taken away only by a superior forum and that also if set aside. Admittedly the judgments delivered in the writ application preferred by the petitioners were not quashed and the direction of this Court to reinstate the petitioners still remained there. I also find that the authorities have wrongly applied the reported decision of Apex Court in Uma Devis case while considering the nature of appointment of the petitioners. They completely overlooked that petitioners case are not cases of regularization, but for finding out the genuineness of appointments. Case ofregularization of a daily wager or ad-hoc appointee cannot be equated with the case of persons whose appointments have been made permanent. In such cases the parameters as provided in Uma Devis case can not have application. They completely overlooked that petitioners case are not cases of regularization, but for finding out the genuineness of appointments. Case ofregularization of a daily wager or ad-hoc appointee cannot be equated with the case of persons whose appointments have been made permanent. In such cases the parameters as provided in Uma Devis case can not have application. This view has been held and affirmed by two Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2007(4) P.L.J.R. 372 and 2008(1) B.B.C.J. 608 . The decision reported in 2008(1) B.B.C.J. 608 also related to termination from service on the ground that appointments were made by forged appointment letter. The Single Judge relying upon the decision of Uma Devis case had dismised the writ application. L.P.A. Bench set aside the judgment passed by the single Judge. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment is as follows: "10 The judgment under appeal also appears to be on the premises as if the case is for considering regularization. The reference to Uma Devis case [Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) and Others: [2006(2) PLJR (SC) 363]; and Vermas case, State of M.P. and others vs. Lalit Kumar Verma; [(2007)1 S.C.C. 575] are pointer to that. The present case being not a case of claim of regularization but the termination of a permanent employee, in our opinion, both the decisions are not applicable to the present case" 24. On consideration of submission of the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case, I find that the impugned enquiry report has been prepared completely in violation of rule of natural justice. The authorities failed to consider that they are conducting enquiry in relation to permanent employees appointment. For that proper course was to initiate a departmental proceeding and not to decide the nature of their appointment in absence of the employees. The authorities also ignored the relevant Government circulars which were in vogue at the time of petitioners respective appointment. While putting the petitioners in the category of forged appointee, the members of the enquiry committee have simply considered the dispatch register and not the signatures under which relevant appointment letters were issued. Signatures of the appointing authorities were not verified. 25. All these are the reasons for which the impugned enquiry report dated 31.12.2008 is quashed. While putting the petitioners in the category of forged appointee, the members of the enquiry committee have simply considered the dispatch register and not the signatures under which relevant appointment letters were issued. Signatures of the appointing authorities were not verified. 25. All these are the reasons for which the impugned enquiry report dated 31.12.2008 is quashed. The writ applications in which termination orders have been issued by the Civil Surgeon or any other authorities, those letters are also quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners on the posts, they were working. Their reinstatement will be with effect from the date of their termination with all consequential benefits. 26. All writ applications are allowed.