ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application was initially preferred for payment of salary for the period from his date of appointment i.e. 10.10.2012 till date. However, during pendency of the instant writ application, the service of the petitioner has been terminated vide order no. G/250/16 dated 27.10.2016 (Annexure-7) and thereafter, an amendment application has been filed wherein the petitioner has prayed for quashing the said termination order i.e letter dated 27.10.2016, which was allowed. 3. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an application under compassionate appointment scheme and the same was considered and resolution was issued by the respondent-University under Memo No.SKMU/R-G/931/12 dated 06.10.2012, whereby it was decided to appoint the petitioner on Class-IV post in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3200/-and the petitioner was appointed for Sahebganj College, Sahebganj. Though the petitioner started working in the 4th Grade employee of the University but the petitioner was denied salary which was specifically mentioned in the notification dated 06.10.2012. Learned counsel further submits that when the petitioner moved before this Court by filing the instant writ application for payment of salary for the period work done by him; the respondent authorities with a mala-fide intention issued a show cause notice to the petitioner that why not his service should be terminated on the ground of irregular appointment. The said show cause notice was duly replied by the petitioner vide letter dated 24.09.2016 wherein he has categorically stated that since the show cause notice is not clear as to on what ground his appointment has been declared irregular; as such, he is unable to give a complete reply. However, pursuant to the said reply, service of the petitioner has been terminated. In view of the aforesaid facts learned counsel submits that the respondents have not adhered to the principle of natural justice and instead of supplying him the reasons for the irregularity in his appointment; his service has been terminated. 4. Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-University refers to Annexure-B to the counter affidavit and submits that the father of the petitioner was not regularized; as such, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was not justified and that is the reason he has been terminated. 4. Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-University refers to Annexure-B to the counter affidavit and submits that the father of the petitioner was not regularized; as such, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was not justified and that is the reason he has been terminated. He further submits that in clause V of the notification it was specifically stated that the appointment of the petitioner and others was subject to the approval from the State Government. Relying upon the aforesaid facts, learned counsel submits that the impugned order is not illegal. However he could not demonstrate as to whether the enquiry report which has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit has been supplied to the petitioner. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the documents annexed to this writ application it appears that pursuant to the show cause notice the petitioner vide its reply dated 24.09.2016 specifically requested the University that the show cause notice is not clear as to under what reasons and circumstances his appointment is considered to be illegal. However instead of giving reply to the show cause notice or giving the copy of enquiry report (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit) the order of termination has been passed only on the ground that his appointment was irregular and against the procedure of compassionate appointment. Looking to the enquiry report it appears that it was dated 19.08.2016 and the show cause notice which was issued to the petitioner was dated 19.09.2016; therefore the respondents were very much having the enquiry report in their custody, however, they chooses not to hand over the same to the petitioner for the reasons best known to them. 6. Be that as it may; the impugned order suffers from infirmity on the ground of non adherence to the principle of natural justice. Admittedly; the petitioner asked for the reasons for irregularity in his appointment. However the same was neither replied nor was enquiry report handed over to him which was purposefully conducted in the case of the petitioner itself. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order as contained in letter bearing no. G/250/16 dated 27.10.2016, is hereby, quashed and set aside. However the same was neither replied nor was enquiry report handed over to him which was purposefully conducted in the case of the petitioner itself. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order as contained in letter bearing no. G/250/16 dated 27.10.2016, is hereby, quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh show cause notice indicating reasons and after getting the reply, pass a fresh order. 8. It goes without saying that from perusal of the enquiry report it appears that the petitioner has worked and as a matter of fact in the said enquiry report it was recommended by the enquiry officer to pay the salary; the respondents are directed to verify the documents and pay the legitimate salary to the petitioner in accordance with the notification whereby the petitioner was appointed. 9. Since this is a case of termination, it is expected that the respondents shall complete the entire enquiry proceeding within a period of Six months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid terms the instant writ application stands disposed of.