ORDER : In this application the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to send to this Court all records pertaining to the order of suspension issued to the petitioner vide memo no. 1039 dated 23.12.2006 by which the petitioner has been kept under suspension and, thereafter, to quash the order of suspension issued to the petitioner being illegal and arbitrary. A further direction has been sought for upon the respondent no. 2 to make payment of salary to the petitioner from 24.12.2006 after deduction of the suspension allowance paid to him. 2. An amendment application was filed for addition of prayer which was allowed vide order dated 16.05.2011 and in terms of the amendment the petitioner has also challenged the letter no. 759 dated 28.09.2010 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. 3. The facts which are narrated in the writ application are that since the petitioner was not being regularly appointed from the District Panel dated 11.07.2002 which was prepared in pursuance to the advertisement published in February, 1999 the petitioner along with the other had preferred W.P.(S) No. 5796 of 2002 and on the basis of the order passed the petitioner was granted his appointment letter for Class IV posts. The petitioner joined his duty in the post of Peon at Bokaro Collectorate on 21.03.2005. The petitioner was, however, served with an order of suspension vide memo no. 1039 dated 23.12.2006 and, thereafter, was served with a charge-sheet in Form K wherein the petitioner was charged with submission of forged educational certificate. On initiation of the departmental proceedings a show cause was filed by the petitioner and, thereafter, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, submitted the enquiry report on 28.03.2008 wherein the Enquiry Officer had opined that the petitioner had put nine years of service after which he was appointed on a permanent basis. The Enquiry Officer had also stated that a sympathetic view should be taken with the case of the petitioner in view of the service rendered earlier and his suspension should be revoked by giving him a warning. After the submission of the enquiry report the petitioner was once again served with memo no. 935 dated 10.08.2010 intimating the petitioner of giving him an opportunity to file a show cause for any additional points which he may have raised before the Enquiry Officer. After the submission of the enquiry report the petitioner was once again served with memo no. 935 dated 10.08.2010 intimating the petitioner of giving him an opportunity to file a show cause for any additional points which he may have raised before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner duly replied and had also prayed for sympathetic consideration of his case. A show cause notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner in which it was stated that the petitioner had been appointed on the basis of forged certificate and the petitioner was directed to submit an explanation as to why he shall not be dismissed from service. Not being satisfied with the earlier enquiry report so submitted the Deputy Commissioner appointed a second Enquiry Officer i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro and, thereafter, the petitioner by virtue of letter no. 759 dated 28.09.2010 was dismissed from service. 4. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned J.C. to G.P.-I appearing for the respondents. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that having not been satisfied with the first enquiry report a second enquiry was conducted in which no show cause was submitted to the petitioner nor the enquiry report was served to the petitioner. It has been submitted that there was no reason for the disciplinary authorities to hold a fresh enquiry when the entire facts have been considered at the time of submission of the first enquiry report. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the second enquiry report may be considered to be a fresh enquiry and whatever may be the findings of the second enquiry, it is not disputed that the petitioner was neither served with the enquiry report nor was given sufficient opportunity to explain his defense and in such circumstance being violative of principle of natural justice the same must lead to quashing of the order of dismissal. 7. Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned J.C. to G.P.-I, has submitted that the petitioner had secured appointment on the basis of educational certificate which were found to be forged in course of enquiry and such circumstance, therefore, disentitles the petitioner to continue in service and resultantly his order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Commissioner does not call for any interference. 8. Shadab Bin Haque, learned J.C. to G.P.-I, has submitted that the petitioner had secured appointment on the basis of educational certificate which were found to be forged in course of enquiry and such circumstance, therefore, disentitles the petitioner to continue in service and resultantly his order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Commissioner does not call for any interference. 8. It is to be seen in the factual back ground enumerated above, as to whether the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain his stand and whether it was permissible for the respondents to hold the second enquiry by an altogether different enquiry officer. It appears that in the first departmental proceeding the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas was appointed as the Enquiry Officer who had submitted his report vide letter no. 229 dated 28.03.2008. The first enquiry report reveals that the show cause of the petitioner was considered wherein the petitioner had stated that he had passed Class VIII from the Government Middle School, Harla, Ratanpur for which the petitioner had submitted the school leaving certificate. The enquiry report further reveals that the school leaving certificate was sent for verification to the concerned school and the verification report suggests that the same was genuine. 9. Considerate approach has been made by the first Enquiry Officer taking into consideration that fact that the petitioner had put in nine years of service prior to his appointment as a regular employee and at the time of the submission of the documents he was influenced by the middle men and, therefore, such act on the part of the petitioner was not deliberate or intentional. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro on the ground that the first enquiry report was vague and not conclusive appointed the Sub Divisional Officer, Chas, Bokaro to conduct a second enquiry. The second enquiry report dated 31.08.2010 reveals that the verification was conducted by the District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro and as per the said report in the attendance register of 1981 and 1984 and the result of the 1985 did not contain the name of the petitioner and, therefore, it was opined by the second Enquiry Officer that since the documents were not genuine necessary decision may be taken for dismissal of the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 thereafter on issuing a second show cause notice had passed the impugned order of dismissal on 28.0-9.2010. 10. The respondent no. 2 thereafter on issuing a second show cause notice had passed the impugned order of dismissal on 28.0-9.2010. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it has been admitted at Paragraph – 33 that the enquiry report of the Sub Divisional Officer, Chas was never submitted to the petitioner. The enquiry report even if it consists of a solitary page requires the same to be submitted to the delinquent employee. Admittedly when such enquiry report was never served upon the petitioner the principles of nature justice have, therefore, been violated. In the order of dismissal dated 28.09.2010 reference has only been made to the second enquiry report but nothing has been stated about the subsequent school leaving certificate which had been submitted by the petitioner before the first Enquiry Officer and which on verification was found to be genuine. In absence of such consideration of the facts which had emanated from the first enquiry report the order of dismissal dated 28.09.2010 sans such reasons and being violative of principle of natural justice deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.09.2010 passed by the respondent no. 2 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after following the principles of natural justice. 12. This writ application stands allowed.