JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for the State of Bihar. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing of order dated 31.05.2017 whereby the petitioners have been dismissed from service with immediate effect. 4. The petitioners were initially appointed as Trainer Motivator by the Office Order dated 22th December, 1988 by the Institute of Entrepreneurship Development (hereinafter referred to as I.E.D.), Patna, Bihar. After completion of successful probation, their services were confirmed on 19th July, 1991. While petitioners were serving in the I.E.D., Bihar, letter dated 18th October, 2001 was issued by the I.E.D, Bihar addressing to the Secretary, Rural Development Department whereby proposal was made for posting on the sanctioned and vacant posts of Assistant Project Officer in various D.R.D.As of Jharkhand. Several persons submitted Bio-data including the petitioners, who were working in the I.E.D. and discharging similar nature of job as required by the D.R.D.A. in Jharkhand. The petitioners were deputed in State of Jharkhand and he joined in the State of Jharkhand in the month of March, 2003. While the petitioners were working on the aforesaid posts, letter no. 731 dated 06.02.2010 was communicated to the Government of Jharkhand issued by the I.E.D., Bihar and on that basis the services of the petitioners were terminated. The petitioners along with others moved before the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7977 of 2010 wherein the Hon’ble Patna High Court passed order of “Status quo” thereafter services of the petitioners were again reinstated by the State of Jharkhand by order dated 05.12.2011. The petitioners were denied consequential benefits. The writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 7977 of 2010 was disposed of by the Hon’ble Patna High Court by order dated 08.04.2017 observing therein that no adverse order has been passed by the State of Jharkhand, pursuant to Annexure 1 and 1/A, there is no reason to pass any order. The petitioners were denied consequential benefits. The writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 7977 of 2010 was disposed of by the Hon’ble Patna High Court by order dated 08.04.2017 observing therein that no adverse order has been passed by the State of Jharkhand, pursuant to Annexure 1 and 1/A, there is no reason to pass any order. If subsequently any cause of action arises, the petitioners would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. Thereafter, the petitioners have been dismissed by order dated 31.05.2017. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioners approached this court by way of filing this writ application. 5. Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed in the year, 1988 by I.E.D., Bihar. Pursuant to policy decision the petitioners were deputed in the State of Jharkhand. He submits that the petitioners were transferred to other post in the State of Jharkhand. He submits that the deputation of the petitioners was confirmed in the year, 2003. He submits that Annexure-1 of the writ petition i.e. letter dated 06.02.2010, earlier order is misconceived one in view of the fact that in the Minutes of Meeting there is no direction of termination of the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners were working for almost 33 years and without following the principle of natural justice and without issuing any show-cause, petitioners have been terminated. He refers Annexures which have been brought on record by way of rejoinder to the counter-affidavit and supplementary affidavit and submits that those documents suggest that the petitioners were well placed in the State of Jharkhand which was taken care of by the respondent-State of Jharkhand. 6. Per contra, Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that the petitioners were working in the State of Jharkhand on deputation. He refers to Annexures of the counter-affidavit and submits that those documents suggest that the petitioners were on deputation. By way of referring Annexure-1 of the writ petition) i.e letter dated 06.02.2010 of the I.E.D., the State of Jharkhand was informed that the services of the petitioners have been terminated. He submits that the termination has been admitted and subsequent reinstatement has been admitted in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-State of Jharkhand. He submits that there is no requirement of following the principle of natural justice and issuing second show-cause notice. He submits that the termination has been admitted and subsequent reinstatement has been admitted in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-State of Jharkhand. He submits that there is no requirement of following the principle of natural justice and issuing second show-cause notice. He further submits that documents brought on record by way of rejoinder also suggest that the petitioners were working on deputation. 7. In the light of the aforesaid facts and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has ventured to go through the documents available on record whereby it transpires that by way of Annexure-1 of the writ petition i.e. letter dated 06.02.2010 it has been informed that the services of the petitioners have been terminated however, that document also suggests for issuance of notice to the petitioners and thereafter in the year, 2003 petitioners were terminated. Pursuant to interim order passed in C.W.J.C. No. Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7977 of 2010 the petitioners were reinstated by the State of Jharkhand by order dated 05.12.2011. Subsequently, when the C.W.J.C. No. 7977 of 2010 was disposed of by the Hon’ble Patna High Court, the impugned order has been passed. It is admitted position that before passing the impugned order, principle of natural justice has not been followed nor any departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioners and no show-cause was issued against the petitioners. The document contained in the rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioners dated 28.03.2003 suggests that petitioner no. 1 was posted on deputation as Assistant Project Officer in D.R.D.A., Chaibasa and petitioner no. 2 was posted by the Office Order dated 05.05.2003 as Assistant Project Officer, D.R.D.A., Deoghar. Certain conditions in the said order were made. Those conditions were directed to be deleted by order dated 28.01.2005. Minutes of Meeting dated 07.12.2003 has been brought on record by way of filing supplementary affidavit by the petitioners wherein at inner page 6 and running page 10 para (ii) the name of the petitioners has been disclosed and their joining on the post of Assistant Project Officer on 03.04.2003 on deputation basis has been said to be confirmed. 8. Minutes of Meeting dated 07.12.2003 has been brought on record by way of filing supplementary affidavit by the petitioners wherein at inner page 6 and running page 10 para (ii) the name of the petitioners has been disclosed and their joining on the post of Assistant Project Officer on 03.04.2003 on deputation basis has been said to be confirmed. 8. In the light of above facts, it transpires that the State of Jharkhand has taken service of the petitioners for a long period however, it may be on deputation basis but they have been terminated without any show-cause or without following the principle of natural justice that too the petitioners have completed 33 years of long service. 9. In view of well-settled principle of law, at least a notice for appearing was required to be issued to the petitioners before passing the impugned order which has not been done in the case in hand. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.05.2017 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 1 who will take a fresh decision in the light of discussions made here-in-above and will pass a fresh order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.