ORDER : Since all these Writ Petitions are inter-related, this Court deems it appropriate to hear these matters together and dispose of the same by way of this Common Order. 2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions were appointed as Staff Nurses on a contract basis, pursuant to Notification No. 1 of 2023. While they were discharging their duties as Staff Nurses, the 3 rd respondent issued proceedings dated 25.04.2024 in Rc.No.SPL/A3/GTGH/MTM/2024 to some of them, calling for an explanation within 24 hours by attaching the proceedings dated 22.04.2024 issued by the 5 th respondent, alleging that the service certificates submitted by them were fake and fabricated. Consequently, proceedings were issued, terminating the services of the petitioners and others. Persons aggrieved by the aforesaid action filed W.P.Nos.10972 and 11103 of 2024 before this Court, which were allowed by a common order dated 09.05.2024, granting liberty to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry afresh. However, before proceeding with the enquiry, the respondents were directed to furnish all material documents and provide reasonable time for the petitioners to procure documents in their defence, enabling them to submit the same before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioners therein were also allowed to continue with their duties. 3. Thereafter, the 5 th respondent issued a Show Cause Notice, dated 16.05.2024, to the petitioners in the aforesaid cases, including the present writ petitioners, calling for an explanation with respect to the allegation of producing fake and fabricated documents. In response, the petitioners submitted their individual explanations to the 5 th respondent. Subsequently, the 6 th respondent, being the Enquiry Officer, issued a notice dated 04.07.2024, calling the petitioners to attend the enquiry, which was scheduled on 08.07.2024, along with the necessary documents in support of their defence. The petitioners appeared before the 6 th respondent and were asked to fill up a questionnaire in the format prepared by the 6 th respondent. Despite this, surprisingly, they were terminated from service vide proceedings in Rc.No.1045/R2A/2024, dated 18.08.2024, which was communicated to the petitioners vide letter dated 24.08.2024. 4. Assailing the termination order dated 18.08.2024 the petitioners filed W.P.No.19219 of 2024 and W.P.No.20932 of 2024. This Court, on 03.09.2024, granted interim suspension of the termination order, observing that the petitioners were not furnished with a copy of the enquiry report before the termination order was passed. 4. Assailing the termination order dated 18.08.2024 the petitioners filed W.P.No.19219 of 2024 and W.P.No.20932 of 2024. This Court, on 03.09.2024, granted interim suspension of the termination order, observing that the petitioners were not furnished with a copy of the enquiry report before the termination order was passed. This order was initially passed for a period of four (04) weeks and subsequently, it was extended from time to time. 5. Curiously, after passing the termination order, the 5 th respondent, by letter dated 21.10.2024, decided to serve the enquiry report dated 07.08.2024 on the petitioners and requested them to submit an explanation to the said report, along with any supporting documents in their defence, within a period of seven (07) days of receiving the letter. In pursuance of the interim suspension granted by this Court, the 5th respondent issued proceedings dated 09.01.2025, directing the petitioners to report to their respective places of work as on the date of termination. The 5 th respondent also directed the Superintendent of the Government Teaching General Hospital, Machilipatnam, and the 6 th respondent-Enquiry Officer-cum-District Medical and Health Officer, Krishna District, to reinstate the petitioners for a period of four weeks. Challenging the conditional order dated 09.01.2025 the petitioners have filed W.P. No. 4478 of 2025. 6. The 5 th respondent filed a counter affidavit, which was adopted by the other respondents, inter-alia submitting that the petitioners were not employed on a contract basis. They contended that the certificates submitted by the petitioners were solely for the purpose of their appointment in response to the notification. The petitioners were given a prior show-cause notice, and after considering their explanations and the material available on record, the 5 th respondent issued the impugned termination order, hence does not warrant interference. The entire process of enquiry conducted by the respondents was most transparent and in fair manner, therefore, and it cannot be alleged that it is in violation of principles of natural justice. The enquiry was conducted strictly by following the procedure and even the enquiry officer found that the service certificates produced by the petitioners were not issued by the authorities concerned, therefore, there is no infirmity in the said order. 7. Heard Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services–IV appearing for the respondents. 8. 7. Heard Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services–IV appearing for the respondents. 8. It is undisputed that the petitioners were appointed as Staff Nurses based on the certificates submitted by them, which are alleged to be fake and fabricated. An inquiry was initiated, and notices were issued within a short span of time. Aggrieved by this, some of the candidates approached this Court in W.P.No.10972 and W.P.No.11103 of 2024, and by order dated 09.05.2024, this Court directed the respondents to furnish all relevant documents and provide the petitioners therein with reasonable time to submit their respective documents in defense, while allowing them to continue attending duties pending the inquiry. 9. The 6 th respondent-Enquiry Officer, issued a notice dated 04.07.2024, directing the petitioners to attend the enquiry on 08.07.2024 and submit a questionnaire. The 6 th respondent concluded the proceedings on that day. However, despite submitting his report on 07.08.2024, the 5 th respondent, without furnishing the report to the petitioners or calling for their explanations/objections, straightaway issued the impugned termination orders on 18.08.2024. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that such course of action is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. When the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a report, it is essential that such report be provided to the petitioners, allowing them to raise objections before any final order is passed. That apart, he contends that after the interim suspension of the impugned order on 03.09.2024, the 5 th respondent furnished a copy of the enquiry report and called for the petitioners’ objections, which is unprecedented. This procedure should have been followed before concluding the enquiry proceedings and issuing the termination order. 11. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader contends that the respondents conducted the enquiry strictly in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.11103 of 2024 and 10972 of 2024. The petitioners were issued a show-cause notice on 16.05.2024, calling for an explanation, and after receiving their objections, the 6 th respondent fixed the date of enquiry on 08.07.2024. The petitioners attended the enquiry, submitted their explanations and supporting documents, and, despite this, they cannot claim that they were not given a proper opportunity to present their case. The petitioners were issued a show-cause notice on 16.05.2024, calling for an explanation, and after receiving their objections, the 6 th respondent fixed the date of enquiry on 08.07.2024. The petitioners attended the enquiry, submitted their explanations and supporting documents, and, despite this, they cannot claim that they were not given a proper opportunity to present their case. The 5 th respondent, based on the report submitted by the 6 th respondent, passed the impugned termination order. The report clearly establishes that the petitioners never worked on contract basis as claimed and that the certificates they submitted were fake and fabricated. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the 5 th respondent. Since this Court suspended the impugned termination orders on 03.09.2024, the petitioners were once again given an opportunity to respond to the enquiry report dated 07.08.2024, and they were also reinstated to their duties. 12. The only issue that requires to be addressed in these matters is whether the 5 th respondent, who initiated the enquiry proceedings against the petitioners based on allegations of submitting fake and fabricated documents, provided them with a fair and reasonable opportunity during the enquiry process. Admittedly, the 6 th respondent was appointed as the Enquiry Officer, who concluded the enquiry and submitted a report dated 07.08.2024 to the 5 th respondent. In normal course of action, upon receiving the inquiry report, the 5 th respondent was required to furnish copy to the petitioners, against whom specific allegations of fabrication were made, and called for their explanation. However, without doing so and without issuing any notice, the 5 th respondent straightaway passed the impugned termination order. Such course of action is impermissible and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the procedure adopted also contravenes Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 , which mandates prior notice and an enquiry before passing any termination order, amounting to imposing a major penalty. 13. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader tried to justify the respondents' actions by submitting that the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioners, such posterior actions do not rectify the fundamental defect of non-furnishing the report before issuing the final orders. As the 5 th respondent had already decided the issue, calling for the petitioners’ explanations against such report would amount to mere formality. 14. As the 5 th respondent had already decided the issue, calling for the petitioners’ explanations against such report would amount to mere formality. 14. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the 5 th respondent, terminating the petitioners' services, is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 15. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.19219 of 2024 and 20932 of 2024 are allowed, setting aside the proceedings in Rc.No.1045/R2A/2024, dated 18.08.2024, issued by the 5 th respondent terminating the services of the petitioners and the matters are remanded back to the 5 th respondent to conduct enquiry afresh. Since the petitioners have already been furnished with the enquiry report dated 07.08.2024, they are permitted to submit their explanations within a period of three (03) weeks from today. Thereafter, the 5 th respondent shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing the final order. The petitioners shall continue in service until the completion of the enquiry. 16. Since petitioners are directed to continue in service, no further orders are necessary in W.P.No.4478 of 2025. Consequently, W.P.No.4478 of 2025 is closed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.