JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 02.07.2009, whereby services of the petitioner has been terminated and for quashing order passed in Service Appeal dated 25.10.2011 and for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that after due procedure of appointment, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher vide memo dated 13.12.1986. It has been submitted that after rendering unblemished services for about two decades, on the basis of complaint made by one co-villager, Harihar Prasad Mehta, an enquiry was made, in which, it is alleged that the matriculation certificate of the petitioner is fake as such, petitioner was terminated vide memo dated 21.09.2005 without issuing any show cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing. Against this, the petitioner preferred Service Appeal No. 147 of 2005, which was allowed vide order dated 02.08.2007 with a finding that the report of Bihar School Examination Board is not conspicuous that it is a fake mark-sheet and that services of the petitioner was dispensed with without initiating proper departmental proceeding, matter was remanded back to take a decision afresh after starting departmental proceeding. 3. In compliance thereof, vide order dated 04.10.2007, the petitioner resumed his duty, however, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and vide memo dated 22.11.2007 the B.E.E.O, Barhi-cum-Padma issued show cause notice with the charge memo contained in Form ‘A’ on the allegation that the petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher on the basis of illegal matriculation certificate and enquiry officer was appointed, who submitted his report. Basing on his report, the petitioner was dismissed from services vide order dated 02.07.2009, which was confirmed by the appellate authority in Service Appeal vide order dated 25.10.2011. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry officer did not enquire the matter afresh and did not make fresh query from B.S.E.B about the genuineness of the certificate and has not discarded the finding recorded by appellate authority in Service Appeal No. 147 of 2005 dated 02.08.2007 that the report of Bihar School Examination Board is not conspicuous that it is a fake mark-sheet. It has further been submitted that before inflicting major punishment no second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner, which has caused great prejudice to the petitioner in putting forth his defence. Furthermore, necessary documents such as copy of the affidavit filed by the complainant have not been given to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that besides departmental proceeding a criminal case being Barhi (Padma) P.S case No. 176 of 2006 was also lodged for the similar set of allegation, in which, the learned Magistrate has been pleased to acquit the petitioner for the said offence with a clear finding that the prosecution has failed to produce the document which are alleged to have been forged and fabricated. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that the impugned order has been passed in strict adherence to the principles of natural justice. On the merit of the case, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that fraud vitiates everything and the petitioner has secured employment on the basis of forged document as the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), B.S.E.B, Patna vide letter no. 6475 dated 02.09.2005 has categorically declared the matriculation certificate of the petitioner to be invalid/illegal. It has further been submitted that the appellate authority-Divisional Commissioner, Hazaribag has never made any comment one in his order that the matriculation certificate of the petitioner as valid. So far as the contention of the petitioner that he served the department for more than two decades shall not absolve the petitioner from his fraudulent act. Learned counsel for the State further submits that after the acquittal in criminal case, the petitioner submitted review petition before the respondent-D.S.E, but that too stood rejected. 6. On perusal of the documents available on record, in particular Annexure B to the counter affidavit, which is a letter dated 02.09.2005 of Deputy Secretary, B.S.E.B, Patna in response of correspondence/letter no. 2317 dated 13.07.2005 made by respondent-D.S.E. due to complaint against the petitioner regarding securing employment on the basis of forged certificate, it appears that the Deputy Secretary, B.S.E.B, Patna has submitted report to the effect that “the mentioned Roll Code and Roll No. shows the description of other student”. 2317 dated 13.07.2005 made by respondent-D.S.E. due to complaint against the petitioner regarding securing employment on the basis of forged certificate, it appears that the Deputy Secretary, B.S.E.B, Patna has submitted report to the effect that “the mentioned Roll Code and Roll No. shows the description of other student”. In the enquiry, the respondents have also procured report from the Headmaster of the concerned school, who vide letter dated 17.05.2005 has informed that “Sri Badri Ram Paswan has neither appeared in the matriculation from this school nor qualified”. Basing on these two piece of evidence, the service of the petitioner was dispensed with vide order dated 21.09.2005 without issuing any show cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing, hence, in appeal it was ordered to reinstate the petitioner in service, however, it was directed to start fresh enquiry after adhering to the principles of natural justice. But the respondents-authorities have again committed same procedural mistake by not issuing second show cause notice before imposition of major punishment of removal from services. 7. Not serving second show case notice prior to infliction of major punishment in the departmental proceeding has time and again been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments and it has been held that by this way, the respondents have swapped away the right of the delinquent to defend his case. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of Raghubir Singh V. Haryana Roadways as reported in (2014) 10 SCC 301 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex referring to the case of Union of India V Mohd. Ramzan Khan reiterated that before passing the order of dismissal, it is mandatory to give second show cause notice to the proposed punishment. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order dated 02.07.2009, whereby services of the petitioner has been terminated and order passed in Service Appeal dated 25.10.2011 are hereby quashed and set aside and matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to start the proceeding from the stage of issuing second show cause notice and take a decision afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.