ORDER : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have raised no complaint regarding audio and visual quality. 2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 19.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2729 of 2017, whereby and whereunder order dated 17.04.2017 was quashed, by which the services of the writ petitioner was terminated on the ground that he does not fulfill the mandatory condition under Rule (iv) (Kha) of the Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Para-Medics Regular Appointment Rules, 2014. 3. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be referred herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under: The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Pharmacist on contractual basis vide letter dated 05.09.2005 and as such an agreement was entered into in between the writ petitioner and the respondents-authorities. The writ petitioner continued to discharge his duties and time to time his contract was extended. The writ petitioner while working as such, the respondents-State came up with a notification dated 30.01.2014 taking a decision therein for regularization of the contractual appointees who are working on the post of Pharmacist for more than 5 years without any break in service, as would be evident from the condition as contained in Clause (iv) (Kha) of the said notification. Accordingly, the respondents-authorities prepared a list and considering the fact that the writ petitioner had worked on contractual basis on the date of issuance of notification dated 30.01.2014, his candidature was considered for regularization on application being made by the writ petitioner in this regard. Initially on scrutiny of the relevant documents, the writ petitioner was found to be suitable for regularization, having his name found at serial no. Initially on scrutiny of the relevant documents, the writ petitioner was found to be suitable for regularization, having his name found at serial no. 85 of the list prepared by the respondents-authorities, and thereafter he started rendering his duties, but later on the respondents-authorities had issued a show cause notice on 12.05.2016 to the writ petitioner alleging therein as to why his services be not terminated for commission of fraud since on the date of notification he was not on contract, whereupon the writ petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations leveled against him with a specific assertion that he on the date of notification of regularization was in service and, therefore, there is no misrepresentation on his part but the reply having been found not satisfactory he was terminated from services vide order dated 17.04.2017, against which, the writ petitioner approached this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2729 of 2017. The writ Court, after calling upon the respondents-State who had filed counter affidavit defending the impugned decision, quashed the impugned order vide order dated 19.07.2018 holding therein that the writ petitioner was in service on the date of regular appointment and further after regularization the capacity of the writ petitioner being under regular establishment as such merely by issuing show cause notice there cannot be any order of termination without resorting to a regular departmental proceeding, which order is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 4. The respondents-State of Jharkhand has assailed the aforesaid order mainly on the ground that the writ petitioner was not in service since his contract was not extended and he remained absent from 11.01.2015 to 14.02.2016 from his work place and therefore, the impugned decision of termination was taken after following the principles of natural justice i.e. by issuing show cause notice and also second show cause notice. He has further submitted by referring to condition no. He has further submitted by referring to condition no. (iv) (Kha) of the notification for regularization which stipulates that the condition for regularization is continuous five years service as on the date of regular appointment and admittedly the writ petitioner having not been found to be in service on the date of regular appointment as his contract was not extended after 31.03.2015 but this fact has not been disclosed by him, hence the writ petitioner has committed fraud by misrepresenting the fact and, therefore, the impugned decision of termination of the writ petitioner was taken. Further, the writ Court had not taken into consideration this factual aspect of the matter rather travelled across different ground of initiation of departmental proceeding. According to learned counsel appearing for the appellants-State there is no requirement of departmental proceeding as when the condition stipulated in the notification of regularization has not been fulfilled the order of regularization will be deemed to be de hors the rule and in that circumstance there is no requirement to initiate departmental proceeding and further the fact about non-extension of the contract in favour of the writ petitioner cannot be disputed by the writ petitioner and in that circumstance there is no requirement to initiate a regular departmental proceeding. According to learned counsel, this fact since has not been taken into consideration by learned Single Judge, therefore, the impugned order suffers from infirmity and hence not sustainable. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel along with learned counsel Mr. Abhishek Sinha, have put their appearance on being noticed. It has been submitted on behalf of writ petitioner that it is incorrect to say that contract of the writ petitioner was not extended rather it is evident from the decision of the authorities concerned dated 10.08.2015 wherein by way of general decision the terms of contract had been extended from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016. According to writ petitioner once there is general decision of renewal of the contract up-to 31.03.2016, in that view of the mater the writ petitioner will said to be on contract and by virtue of that he was in service on the date of regular appointment and therefore, he was fulfilling the condition no. (iv) (Kha) as stipulated in the notification. (iv) (Kha) as stipulated in the notification. It has further been stated that even the competent authorities had taken decision on 28.08.2015 which clearly speaks that any person who has been found absent for long time his contract will not be cancelled but principle of no work no pay will be applicable and to that effect a decision is required to be taken by the respondents-authorities, appellants herein, and as such even if it will be presumed that the writ petitioner was on leave the said period will not be treated to be break in service rather it has to be treated as leave without pay and hence on this ground also the impugned decision of the authorities terminating the writ petitioner from services is absolutely illegal. Learned senior counsel has further argued that as on the date of termination, since the services of the writ petitioner was regularized, as such merely by issuance of show cause notice major punishment like termination from service cannot be imposed rather as per the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules before imposing major punishment of dismissal or termination or removal from service a regular departmental proceeding was required to be initiated as per the provision of Rule 55 of the said Rules but having not done so there is gross procedural illegality. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, has rightly quashed and set aside the impugned decision of termination from services and as such the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from no infirmity. 6. This Court, having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents available on record and also findings recorded in the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to refer certain facts, which are necessary for proper adjudication of the lis. The writ petitioner was appointed on contractual basis vide order as contained in letter dated 05.09.2005. The contract was extended from time to time and while working as such the State Government through Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department has come out with a notification dated 30.01.2014 in exercise of power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regularization of services of Nurse Grade-A, Pharmacist, Laboratory Technicians and ANM. The contract was extended from time to time and while working as such the State Government through Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department has come out with a notification dated 30.01.2014 in exercise of power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regularization of services of Nurse Grade-A, Pharmacist, Laboratory Technicians and ANM. The said Rule has been made applicable for consideration of regularization on such contractual employees who were working as Nurse Grade-A, Pharmacist, Laboratory Technicians and ANM. The eligibility condition as provided under Rule (iv) (Kha) (which is relevant in the context of the case) is that the contractual appointees must have completed at least five years of actual contractual service and he must be in continuous service on the date of regular appointment. The writ petitioner claiming himself to be eligible in pursuance to the notification dated 30.01.2014 made application and the competent authority found him suitable for regularization and accordingly he was regularized in service as Pharmacist vide order dated 08.02.2016. The authorities have issued a show cause notice on 12.05.2016 about alleged commission of fraud/misrepresentation of fact since according to State-authorities on the date of appointment the writ petitioner was not in service rather he was on leave but the aforesaid fact has been suppressed and therefore, explanation was sought for as to why the writ petitioner be not terminated from services. The writ petitioner had submitted reply denying the allegation taking stand that he was in service on the date of appointment and fulfils the condition as stipulated under Clause (iv) (Kha) of the notification of regularization but the aforesaid reply having found to be not satisfactory the impugned order of termination dated 17.04.2017 was passed, which was impugned before the writ Court. The writ Court after taking into consideration the materials available before it allowed the writ petition vide order dated 19.07.2018 and quashed the impugned order of termination. 7. The moot question which is to be decided in this appeal is: “As to whether on the date of regular appointment, the writ petitioner was in service in compliance to the condition as stipulated under Clause (iv)(Kha) of the notification dated 30.01.2014? 7. The moot question which is to be decided in this appeal is: “As to whether on the date of regular appointment, the writ petitioner was in service in compliance to the condition as stipulated under Clause (iv)(Kha) of the notification dated 30.01.2014? According to the appellant-State, the writ petitioner was on leave on the date of regular appointment and his contract having been not extended after 31.03.2015 therefore on the date of regular appointment i.e. on 08.02.2016 he was not fulfilling the condition as stipulated under clause (iv)(Kha). The aforesaid contention has been disputed by the writ petitioner by relying upon the decision of the State-authorities dated 10.08.2015 wherein by taking a general decision the contract of the contractual appointees has been extended from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 and as such regular appointment of the writ petitioner being made on 08.02.2016, the contract of the writ petitioner was subsisting. 8. This Court, after consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, has found from the materials available on record that admittedly the writ petitioner was on leave for certain period but it is admitted position that the contract of the writ petitioner was never terminated. The contention of the State-authorities that after 31.03.2015 the contract of the writ petitioner since has not been extended it will be treated to be closure of the contract but the question is that when the State-authorities have taken decision on 10.08.2015 as contained in memo no. 1926 extending the contract period from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 of the contractual employees, can such plea be allowed to be taken by the State-appellants? 9. This Court, in order to answer the aforesaid issue, has travelled across the memo no. 1926 dated 10.08.2015 which has been annexed as Annexure S/2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 07.10.2020 wherefrom it is evident that such decision has been taken by Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand addressed to the Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi communicating about the extension of the period of contract between 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 as would be evident from paragraph 5 thereof wherein decision to extend contract up-to 31.03.2016 or till the regular appointment is being made, in terms of the agreement already executed. of Jharkhand addressed to the Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi communicating about the extension of the period of contract between 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 as would be evident from paragraph 5 thereof wherein decision to extend contract up-to 31.03.2016 or till the regular appointment is being made, in terms of the agreement already executed. Therefore, according to our considered view when the general direction has been issued for extension of the contract it will be considered to be operative in connection with the writ petitioner also unless a different decision in the context of the writ petitioner is taken by the State authorities but there is no such decision taken contrary to the interest of the writ petitioner for not extending the contract after 31.03.2015, as such the writ petitioner will be said to have been in service by virtue of extension of contract till 31.03.2016 or till making of the regular appointment and hence fulfilling the condition stipulated under Clause (iv)(Kha) of the notification to the effect that that the contractual appointees if discharging his duties continuously for the five years on the date of regular appointment will be treated to be eligible for regularization. 10. Further contention of the State-appellants that the writ petitioner was on leave but as would be evident from the documents annexed with the rejoinder affidavit dated 15.10.2020 wherein document has been annexed to deal with the condition of such employees who are on leave, decision has been taken on 28.08.2015 that if a contractual appointee is on leave, the contract will not be closed rather the said period will be treated to be period of ‘no work no pay’ and to that effect decision was required to be taken by the competent authority. Here it is not the fact that the writ petitioner has not made appropriate application to deal with the period of leave rather it would be evident from the impugned order which refers about several correspondences made by the writ petitioner i.e. on 02.02.2015, 05.05.2015, 14.09.2015 and 07.12.2015 for sanction of leave but no decision has been taken by the authorities in pursuance to the direction of the department as referred in the communication dated 28.08.2015 and as such in case of no decision at the end of the appellants-State, as per order dated 28.08.2015, the writ petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the laches committed on the part of the State-authorities. 11. Further question arises: “As to whether on the basis of issuance of notice a regular public servant can be dispensed with from the services without resorting to the departmental proceeding?” The answer would be that certainly for dealing with such employee before removal or termination a regular departmental proceeding is required to be initiated as per the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, but herein merely on the basis of the show cause the order of termination has been passed. In this context, it has been argued by learned counsel for the State-appellants that since the condition stipulated in the eligibility criteria as contained in notification dated 30.01.2014 there is no requirement to initiate a departmental proceeding as because if a candidate is not found to be eligible to hold a post, such appointment will be de hors the rule and in that circumstance there is no need to initiate a departmental proceeding. We are not in agreement of the aforesaid argument as the said argument can be accepted if the fact is not in dispute but when the fact is in dispute a regular departmental proceeding is required to be initiated to provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the delinquent employee. Herein, the case of the writ petitioner all along is that he was in service on the date of regular appointment and to that effect he has relied upon the document i.e. the order of extension of the contract issued vide notification dated 10.08.2015 and decision of the authorities for considering the period of leave as per the decision of the State-authorities dated 28.08.2015. In such a factual background regular departmental proceeding was required to be initiated in order to come to a conclusive finding about non-fulfillment of eligibility criteria or to ascertain about the allegation of misrepresentation and if on this pretext, the learned Single Judge has come to the finding by holding the order of termination illegal, the same cannot be said to suffer from infirmity. We have also considered the issue as to whether the matter may be remanded before the authority to take decision afresh by holding regular departmental proceeding on the basis of the principle that on technicality no one can be allowed to take advantage. But such decision of renewal will not be proper as because when we have already came to the conclusion, by considering the relevant documents, that the writ petitioner is fulfilling the eligibility criteria as stipulated in Clause (iv) (Kha) of the notification of 2014, in that circumstance remitting the matter before the authority will be of no avail. 12. We, on the basis of aforesaid fact as also discussions made herein above, are of the view that the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the factual aspects in detail, has come to a conclusive finding by holding the order of termination not sustainable both on fact as well law and the same, according to us, suffers from no infirmity. 13. In view thereof, the appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed. 14. In view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, the Interlocutory Application, being I.A. No. 8393 of 2018, stands disposed of.