JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the instant writ application, the petitioner inter alia prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.07.2009 (Annexure-11/1) issued under the signature of the Director-in Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand, by which services of the petitioner been terminated and also for direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with back wages including consequential benefits. 2. Sans details, the facts, as been delineated in the writ application in a nutshell, is that, the petitioner was appointed as Vaccinator in the Health Department, Dumka in the year 1981 and vide order dated 21.03.1984 issued under the signature of Regional Deputy Director, Health Service, Bhagalpur Division, the petitioner was absorbed as Basic Health Worker with effect from the date of his original appointment. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Service, Bhagalpur Division, vide memo dated 30.03.1984 made some correction in his earlier order dated 21.03.1984 regarding the post of the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.10.1994 by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Deoghar regarding change of post i.e. Vaccinator to Computer. The petitioner filed a detailed show cause reply but being dissatisfied with the same, the Chief Medical Officer, Deoghar stopped the salary of the petitioner. The Regional Deputy Director, Health services, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka vide letter dated 23.09.1996 directed the Chief Medical Officer, Deoghar to pay the salary to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was continuously discharging his duty to the satisfaction of all superiors, but, suddenly he received a copy of Memo No. 308 dated 26.08.2002, issued under the signature of the In-Charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Karon, informing him that his salary w.e.f. August 2002 will be kept in abeyance, as he not submitted his original appointment letter. The petitioner immediately submitted his appointment letter before the In-Charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Karon, but his payment was not released. When the salary of the petitioner was not paid, he along with one Ajit Kumar Ministry filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3186/2003 assailing the order contained in Memo No. 308 dated 26.08.2002 for payment of arrears of salary before this Court. When the salary of the petitioner was not paid, he along with one Ajit Kumar Ministry filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3186/2003 assailing the order contained in Memo No. 308 dated 26.08.2002 for payment of arrears of salary before this Court. In W.P. (S) No. 3186/2003, a direction had been given to the authority concerned to conduct an enquiry with respect to legality and propriety of the petitioner's appointment and in the mean time, pay salary to the petitioner including the back wages. When the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 3186/2003 was not complied with, a contempt case had also been filed, wherein this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 22.05.2009 by passing an order stopped the payment of In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Karon, Deoghar. During pendency of the contempt case, the enquiry report was submitted, wherein it was found that the petitioner had been illegally appointed. Thereafter, the impugned order been passed terminating the petitioner from services. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when this Court had directed to conduct a thorough enquiry and conclude the same within three months after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in course of enquiry, merely on the basis of a show cause notice, the petitioner was removed from service. Learned counsel further submitted that while passing the impugned order, certain allegation of misconduct also been made. Hence, before passing the impugned order, it was necessary to initiate a regular departmental proceeding, as been intended in the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3186/2003. However, since the petitioner was discharging his duty since 1981, merely on the basis of a show cause notice and without providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of hearing, he could not have been removed from service. Thus, the impugned order of termination been passed in breach of the principle of natural justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted by referring to the counter affidavit that the petitioner had been illegally appointed without following due procedure of law, as such he got no legal right to remain in service. Thus, the impugned order of termination been passed in breach of the principle of natural justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted by referring to the counter affidavit that the petitioner had been illegally appointed without following due procedure of law, as such he got no legal right to remain in service. Learned counsel further submitted that a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner and after considering the show cause notice, a report was submitted on 25.6.2009, wherein it had been found that the appointment of the petitioner is illegal and irregular, as such the decision been taken by the authority concerned to remove the petitioner from service. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 5. Heard the parties, perused the record. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 11.06.1981 and was working since 1981. The petitioner was also being paid regular salary. But after some time, his salary was withheld. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3186/2003 for a direction to release the arrears of difference of honorarium. The respondents have, however, taken a ground that since the petitioner, on demand, had not produced the original appointment letter, his salary had been stopped. Considering this aspect of the matter, the following order had been passed in W.P.(S) No. 3186/2003: "Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do find that the petitioners' salary been stopped simply by stating that the photo copy of the appointment letters produced by the petitioners appears to be forged, though the matter required thorough inquiry. Therefore, the respondent no. 4-Medical Officer-in-Charge, Primary Health Centre, Karon is directed to hold inquiry in the matter and conclude it within three months. It goes without saying that the petitioners would have every right of being heard in course of inquiry. Till the final decision is taken by the respondent no. 4, he would be paying salary to the petitioners, including the back wages." 7. From perusal of the order referred to herein above, it is apparent that this Court had directed the respondents to come to a definite finding with respect to legality and propriety of the appointment of the petitioner by conducting thorough inquiry. The Medical Officer in-Charge, Primary Health Centre, Karon was directed to hold inquiry and to conclude it within three months. The Medical Officer in-Charge, Primary Health Centre, Karon was directed to hold inquiry and to conclude it within three months. However, it been observed that "it goes without saying that the petitioners would have every right of being heard in course of inquiry". 8. Thorough inquiry means a regular departmental proceeding. This Court while disposing of W.P.(S) No. 3186/2003 had also directed to conclude the inquiry within three months, which further suggests that the intention of this Court was to hold a thorough inquiry by providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. Though adequate and sufficient opportunity not been defined, but the meaning of adequate and sufficient opportunity is always to provide full opportunity of hearing to an employee, who is going to be adversely affected by the decision to be taken by the authority concerned. In this regard, the provision of Rule 166 of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 is also worth to be seen, which is quoted herein below: "166. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank.- (i) Without prejudice to the provision of the Public Servants' Enquiries Act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal or reduction shall be passed on a Government servant unless he been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action, and been afforded a reasonable opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and on any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. He shall be required, within a fortnight, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires or if the authority concerned so directs, an oral enquiry shall be held. At that enquiry, oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted, and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses called, as he may wish : Provided that the officer conducting the enquiry may, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. At that enquiry, oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted, and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses called, as he may wish : Provided that the officer conducting the enquiry may, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The examination and cross-examination of prosecution and defence wintriness will be complied within a month. [(ii) After the enquiry against the person charged been completed to impose a penalty arrived at a conclusion with regard to the penalty to be imposed, he shall pass such orders as he deems fit. Note.- When the orders for punishment are passed by an authority other than the persons conducting the enquiry it shall be sufficient for the authority passing order of punishment to record his agreement or disagreement with the person conducting the enquiry : Provided that due regard shall be paid to the provisions of Rule 3 of Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.] (ii) With a view to securing prompt investigation and speedy disposal of all departmental proceedings the officers entrusted with the conduct of disciplinary enquiries, particularly in cases of bribery and corruption, while giving reasonable facilities to the accused to make their defence, should mainly confine themselves to the essentials of the prescribed procedure and should firmly resist any tendency on the part of accused officers to adopt dilatory tactics. Detailed instructions regarding the manner in which disciplinary cases are to be dealt with have been laid down in Mr. L.P. Singh's letter no. A-189 dated the 9th January, 1953 which is incorporated in Appendix J. These instructions should be meticulously followed by all officers required to conduct departmental proceedings. (iv) In departmental proceedings the option of engaging a lawyer at their own cost should be allowed to gazetted officers when formal enquiries are conducted after the framing of a charge or charges against them. In the case of non-gazetted officer the office conducting the enquiry should be allowed discretion whether to allow the officer concerned the option of engaging a lawyer at his own cost or not." 10. In the case of non-gazetted officer the office conducting the enquiry should be allowed discretion whether to allow the officer concerned the option of engaging a lawyer at his own cost or not." 10. From perusal of the provisions of Rule 166 of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958, it is apparent that no person can be dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired without providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard, meaning thereby, a full fledged enquiry is required i.e. issuance of a memorandum of charge and other formalities, as indicated in Rule 166 of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rues, 1958. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been given a show cause notice and on the basis of the said show cause notice, a report had been submitted by the In-Charge Medical Officer on 25.06.2009, wherein it been referred to that prima facie the appointment of the petitioner seems to be irregular and illegal. Thus, the said enquiry can only be said to be a preliminary enquiry for the purpose of fact finding, wherein also no definite conclusion been arrived at by the In-Charge-Medical Officer coming to a concrete finding regarding irregular and illegal appointment of the petitioner, rather it been reported that prima facie the appointment of the petitioner seems to be irregular and illegal. The impugned order been passed on the basis of the enquiry report dated 25.06.2009. Thus, admittedly, only on the basis of prima facie opinion of the In-Charge Medical Officer, the impugned order been passed. 12. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand, Ranchi removed the petitioner from service on the ground of irregular and illegal appointment and on the allegation of indiscipline and misconduct having been committed by the petitioner in course of his service. Thus, the impugned order is not an order of removal from service simpliciter, rather it been passed on the ground of misconduct and irregular and illegal appointment. 13. Thus, the impugned order is not an order of removal from service simpliciter, rather it been passed on the ground of misconduct and irregular and illegal appointment. 13. The law is very clear regarding the action to be taken by the authorities for dispensing with the service of a Government employee, which is by way of initiating a departmental proceeding by resorting to a full fledged enquiry, otherwise the same will be hit by the provision contained in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which is being quoted herein below: "No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges." 14. Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India provides that if a person is holding a civil post, no adverse order can be passed against him without providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of hearing to him. 15. The petitioner was working since 1981 and was also being paid his salary. He was promoted to the higher post. But the respondents have opened the chapter regarding irregularity and illegality in the appointment of the petitioner. After permitting the petitioner to render service for a period of twenty three years, the respondents have removed him from service and that too merely on the ground of a show cause notice, which is not justifiable and is in the teeth of earlier order passed in W.P.(S) No. 3186/2003 because admittedly due to the impugned order, the petitioner visited with civil consequence and for that he needs to be heard by providing adequate and sufficient opportunity. 16. In the facts and circumstances stated herein above and for the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order dated 30.07.2009 (Annexure-11/1) is not sustainable and the same is, hereby, quashed. 17. However, the respondents are given liberty to proceed afresh in the matter and take appropriate decision in accordance with law by providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. 18. This writ petition is disposed of in the terms indicated herein above. Petition disposed of.