ORDER : (Ananda Sen, J.) 1. By filing this Letters Patent Appeal, the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Home Department and others have assailed the order passed by learned Single Judge on 22.10.2021 in W.P.(S) No.2511 of 2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent, seeking to quash the order contained in Memo No.47 dated 09.01.2013 by which the petitioner was terminated from his service under Rule 668(Ka) of the Jharkhand Police Manual, has been allowed. 2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Constable in Chatra District on 31.12.2011. He was sent for training. Writ petitioner-respondent was served with a notice with an allegation that at the time of selection, he had not appeared in the Physical Test, rather someone impersonating him with connivance of others to help him getting the appointment, had appeared. A First Information Report was also lodged with the aforesaid allegation on 02.11.2012. Petitioner replied to the show cause denying all the allegations, but the respondent-appellants, after receipt of reply to the show cause, issued the order of termination as contained in Memo No.47 dated 09.01.2013. The only grievance of the writ petitioner-respondent in the writ petition was that without a proper Departmental Enquiry, petitioner could not have been dismissed when the charge was of impersonation. As per him, to prove the said charge, it is necessary to produce several evidences, which could only have been brought forward in a regular departmental proceeding. He further submits that the criminal case being GR No. 923 of 2012 ended in acquittal from the Court of Shri Dinesh Kumar, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra vide judgment dated 5th January, 2019, as not even a single witness was produced by the prosecution despite grant of several opportunities. Since there is a judgment of acquittal, it was more necessary for the respondents-appellants to initiate a Departmental Proceeding. 3. It is the case of the State-appellants that the writ petitioner-respondent was a probationer and as there was unlawful fraudulent means adopted by him in getting appointment, it was well within the provisions of law to remove him without initiating a regular Departmental Enquiry. Rule 668(a) of the Jharkhand Police Manual provides for removal without any Departmental Proceeding. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. Rule 668(a) of the Jharkhand Police Manual provides for removal without any Departmental Proceeding. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by setting aside the termination order and remitted the matter back to the competent authority to reinstate the writ petitioner with a liberty to initiate a fresh Departmental Proceeding. 5. Admittedly, the writ petitioner-respondent was a probationer when he was terminated. His termination is not simplicitor. Termination order carries a stigma with a charge of obtaining appointment by fraud. This charge is no doubt a grave charge, but can only be proved with the support of evidence. Terminating the service on the aforesaid charge is stigmatic. When the order of removal is stigmatic, it is necessary to give a proper opportunity to the delinquent employee to defend himself and to prove the charge wrong. Further, to prove the aforesaid charge, evidence has to be led. Only by issuing a show cause notice, this type of charge, which has been levelled against the writ petitioner-respondent, cannot be proved. The actual motive behind the notice to show cause is to punish the delinquent. The punishment cannot be imposed without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 6. Appellants in this case have heavily relied on Rule 668(a) of Jharkhand Police Manual and submitted that since the writ petitioner-respondent has obtained appointment by fraud and he was on probation, Rule 668(a) can be invoked and without initiating a Departmental Proceeding writ petitioner-respondent can be removed. Rule 668(a) of the Jharkhand Police Manual reads as follows: - “668. Removal or reversion of officers appointed direct or promoted on probation.-The following rules shall govern first appointments and the promotion of police and ministerial officers as detailed in Appendix 41 – (a) All officers shall in the first instance be appointed or promoted on probation. Where the period of probation is not otherwise provided for in the rules it shall be for a period of two years in the case of executive officers and one year in the case of ministerial officers. Where the period of probation is not otherwise provided for in the rules it shall be for a period of two years in the case of executive officers and one year in the case of ministerial officers. The authority authorized to make such appointment or promotion, may at any time during such probationary period and without the formalities laid down in rule 828, remove an executive officer directly appointed or revert such an officer promoted who has not fulfilled the conditions of his appointment or who has shown himself unfit for such appointment or promotion. Similarly probationary period may also be extended without any show cause. No appeal shall lie in such cases.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dr. Vijaya Kumaran C.P.V. versus Central University of Kerala & Others reported in (2020) 12 SCC 426 has set aside a stigmatic order of termination, after finding that no regular Departmental Proceeding was held. In this case, we find that the order of termination of the petitioner is definitely stigmatic as it alleged that the petitioner has obtained appointment by fraud. Rule 668(a) of the Jharkhand Police Manual gives liberty to the employer to remove a probationer if he is unfit. In the instant case, it is an admitted case that the writ petitioner-respondent has not been removed on the ground that he is “unfit for such appointment” rather the allegation takes a few more steps further, i.e., of obtaining appointment by fraud. This allegation needs to be proved. 8. Further, we find that the writ petitioner-respondent has been acquitted in the criminal trial. This fact also needs to be taken note of by the authority, which can be properly dealt with in a Departmental Proceeding. Learned Single Judge has, thus, correctly set aside the order of termination with a liberty to the appellants-employer to initiate a regular Departmental Enquiry against the writ petitioner-respondent. Thus, we find no illegality in the order passed by learned Single Judge. This Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this order shall be issued as per the Rules.