Letters Patent Appeal No.1310 of 2010 Against judgment and order dated 15.7.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.13635 of 2007. 1. Kamlesh Kumar Kamal Son of Late Shivnandan Singh, resident of Railway Loco Colony, Qr. No.157/B, PO Khagaul, PS Khagaul, District Patna, at present posted as Constable, RPF Up Post Division Mugalsarai, ECR 2. Binod Kumar Pathak 3. Srinivas Kumar 4. Prahlad Kumar 5. Narsingh Yadav 6. Santosh Kumar Mishra 7. Sujit Kumar Mishra 8. Shailendra Kumar Mishra 9. Ashok Kumar Singh 10. Navin Singh 11. Triveni Yadav 12. Sheo Shankar Kumar Singh 13. Sushant Dubey 14. Sushil Dungdung 15. Dineshwar Ram 16. Prabin Kumar Ojha 17. Din Bandhu Singh 18. Suresh Kumar Singh 19. Yogendra Bahadur Singh 20. Anup Kumar Sah Gond 21. Gangadhar Jha 22. Sudhir Kumar Singh 23. Dinesh Prasad 24. Shivjee Rai 25. Vijay Yadav ...Petitioners - Appellants Versus 1. The Union of India through the Director General, Railway Protection Force (RPF) Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 2. The Chief Security Commissioner-cum-DIG Railway Protection Force, East Central Railway (ECR) Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar 3. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar 4. The Chairman, Selection Committee-cum- Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF. Samastipur .... .... Respondent/s ******** For the Appellants : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha Senior Advocate Mr. Bijoy Kumar Sinha, Advocate ********* 2 P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR.KATRIAR and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN S K Katriar,J. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna has been preferred by the petitioners of CWJC No. 13635 of 2007, and are aggrieved by the order dated 15.7.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the order cancelling the merit list for promotion from the cadre of Head Constable to Sub-Inspector, has been upheld. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. The appellants are Constables and Head Constables in the services of the Railway Protection Force and had, on the relevant date, put in more than ten years of service. The respondent authorities had issued notice dated 13.9.2005 (Annexure 1), inviting applications from Constable and Head Constables of the Railway Protection Force (Executive Branch), for consideration for promotion to the 27 vacant posts of Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police under the R P F Rules 1987. The appellant was an applicant. The respondent authorities prepared a list of 399 eligible candidates (Annexure 2), for consideration for promotion who were invited for written examination and practical test. After completion of these stages of the selection process, a list of 81 candidates was prepared and was notified on 7.2.2006 (Annexure 3), who were empanelled for the viva-voce test. After the stage of viva- voce was over, the authorities notified a list of 27 candidates who 3 had been provisionally empanelled for the purpose of promotion (Annexure 4). The same was subject to vigilance clearance and successful completion of training. This was followed by communication dated 5.1.2007 (Annexure 5), whereby the subordinate officials were directed to release the empanelled candidates for the training course after subjecting them to medical test. After completion of the training course, a three-member Board submitted its report dated 7.3.2007 (Annexure 6), about their performance, inter alia, stating therein that “.....the final result is submitted herewith for kind perusal and approval please.” It appears that, in view of the complaints received about the purity of the selection process, the same was subjected to an enquiry by the Vigilance Department of the Railway Protection Force. The Vigilance Department submitted its report dated 29.6.2007 (Annexure –A to the counter affidavit), which found serious defects in the selection process. This was followed by order dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure 7), notifying cancellation of the entire selection process and impugned in the writ proceeding. This was followed by the order dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure 9), reiterating the same position and notifying three reasons for cancellation of the selection process, and impugned in the writ proceeding. 2.1) It appears that these two orders were not available to the petitioner at the time of institution of the writ petition. He filed an Interlocutory Application for amendment of pleadings which was allowed in the writ proceedings by order dated 30.1.2008. On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned Single Judge 4 has dismissed the writ petition on account of the irregularities which had taken place while conducting the selection process. Hence this appeal at the instance of the writ petitioners. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned orders, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the orders dated 3.1.2007 (Annexure 4), and 7.3.2007 (Annexure 6), were final merit lists and, therefore, should have been allowed to take full effect. He has advanced elaborate submissions to discredit the three reasons assigned in the order dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure 9), to cancel the selection process. He submits in the same vein that, in view of the three reasons assigned in the impugned order dt. 31.3.2008, the authorities cannot be permitted to improve upon the same by affidavits. He relies on the judgment in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner (AIR 1978 SC 851 = (1978) 1 SCC 405. He also submits that the three reasons assigned in the impugned order dt. 31.3.2008 are at best mere irregularities, do not go to the root of the matter, and need not result in cancellation of the entire selection process. He submits in the same vein that it is at best a case of procedural irregularities, not a case of widespread malaise and, therefore, every effort should be made to preserve the selection process. He relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Kumar Singh [2009(3) PLJR 878], to which one of us (S K Katriar, J) was a party. He also submits that the impugned orders were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, and no opportunity was afforded before the impugned orders were passed. He lastly submits 5 that the enquiry report is a mere catalogue of allegations and, in any view of the matter, the findings are perverse. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned orders. He submits that the action is based on a thorough enquiry into the conduct of the selection process. He next submits that action has been decided to be taken against the erring persons. He also submits that the orders dated 3.1.2007, and 7.3.2007, were essentially provisional in nature, subject to vigilance clearance etc. He submits in the same vein that the report dated 7.3.2007, stated in unmistakable term that it was being submitted for final approval of the competent authority which was never accorded, having been overtaken by the enquiry which resulted in cancellation of the selection process. He further submits that, in view of the enquiry report, the whole of the selection process has to be cancelled. He relies on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court by one of us (S K Katriar, J.), in the case of Sunil Kumar v. State of Bihar [2009(1) PLJR 744, and placed particular reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court adverted therein. He lastly submits that in a matter of the present nature, the principles of natural justice need not be observed. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. We must first of all examine the nature and the weight of the orders dated 3.1.2007 (Annexure 4), and 7.3.2007 (Annexure 6). Annexure- 4 is an order incorporating names of 25 persons who were provisionally empanelled for the purpose of promotion subject to vigilance 6 clearance and the training course. The preamble of the order is reproduced hereinbelow:- Þjslqc fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 72 ds v/khu xfBr p;u lfefr }kjk vf/k”kk’kh “kk[kk esa lgk;d mi fujh{kd @ jslqc osrueku 4000&6000 ds in ij izksUufr ds fy, p;u ijh{kk fnukad 9-10-2006 ls 12-10-2006 rd izf”k{k.k dsUnz @ jslqcy @ eksdkek?kkV esa lEiUu gqbZ Fkh] p;u ds ifj.kke Lo:i fuEufyf[kr dkUl0 @ gsM dkUl0 dks l0m0fu0 jslqc osrueku 4000&6000 ds in ij izksUufr ds fy, izksfotuyh ukfedkc) fd;k tkrk gSA budh inksUufr n.M@Mh0,0vkj0@,l0ih0bZ@foftys”k dsl ls eqDr jgus rFkk lmfu inksUufr izf”k{k.k ikB;Øe lQy gksus ij izHkkoh gksxhAÞ Annexure-6 is the report of the Board of three members who had certified that 62 persons mentioned therein had successfully completed the training course and “.......final result is submitted herewith for kind perusal and approval please.” It is relevant to state that one D S Sahota, Security Commissioner-cum-Principal, RPF Training Centre, Mokamaghat, was one of the members of the Committee, an aspect of the matter we would deal with while considering the report. It is thus evident that both Annexures -4 and 6 were essentially provisional in nature, were subject to vigilance clearance, and the final approval of the competent authority which was never accorded. In any view of the matter, even if the same were the final merit list, the same would always be subject to enquiry of the nature conducted in the present case. We decide this issue against the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has advanced elaborate 7 submissions to convince us that only three reasons for cancellation were assigned in the impugned order dated 31.3.2008, and the authorities cannot be permitted to improve upon the situation. He has advanced detailed submissions to discredit each one of the three reasons, and in any view the matter were mere irregularities. It appears to us that the impugned order dated 31.3.2008 was entirely based on the enquiry report dt. 29.6.2007. Therefore, we have no manner of doubt that the contents and the findings of the enquiry report are the primary factors to determine the validity or otherwise of the selection process. The impugned order dated 31.3.2008 was at best a summary of the enquiry report, which may not be an accurate summary and will not determine the present proceeding. We propose to examine the enquiry report itself. 7. We must at this stage consider the judgment of the Supreme Court in M S Gill (supra), on which the learned counsel for the appellants has placed heavy reliance. In his submission, the judgment lays down to the effect that impugned order has to be adjudged on the basis of its contents, and the authorities cannot be allowed to improve upon the same by means of affidavits filed before the Court. This is a misappreciation of the judgment. The same has been discussed and clarified by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments later on which are to the effect that an impugned order can always be explained on the basis of contemporaneous documents when the matter comes to be challenged before the Court. The present case is entirely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in M S Gill (supra) read with the later judgments. 8 The enquiry report in question is a contemporaneous document and is the basis of the impugned order dated 31.3.2008. 8. We now proceed to consider the contents of the enquiry report which is dated 29.6.2007, and has been submitted by a functionary of the RPF, namely, Chief Vigilance Inspector (Personnel), Hajipur. He has examined ten factors discrediting the selection process. It appears to us to be an exhaustive and systematic report. Sub- conclusions have been recorded for each and every allegation, and have been wrapped up by the final conclusion. The sub-conclusions as well as the final conclusions are reproduced hereinbelow:- mi fu’d’kZ % jsyos cksMZ ds i=kad 95&R (SCT)1/49/5(1) fnukad 21-8-97 esa fufgr funsZ”kkuqlkj fcuk jksLVj jftLVj rS;kj fd;s xyr :i ls vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tu tkfr gsrq vkjf{kr inks dh la[;k dk fu/kkZj.k fd;s tkus ds fy;s Jh cS|ukFk jke] dk;kZf/k & II rFkk Jh “kadj ewjew] eq[; dk;kZf/k la;qDr :i ls nks’kh gSA --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- mi fu’d’kZ % fyf[kr ijh{kk esa conducting Officer ds :i esa vius iw.kZ nkf;Ro dk fuoZgu ugha djus ds fy;s Jh >k] elqvk@leLrhiqj iw.kZ:is.k ftEesokj gSA --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- mi fu’d’kZ % p;u lfefr dk xBu nks’kiw.kZ gSA ftlds fy;s loZizFke laoxZ fyfid Jh cS|ukFk jke] dk;kZf/k & II ,oa Jh “kadj ewjew] eqdk;kZf/k }kjk fVIi.kh ds ek/;e ls eqlqvk egksn; dk vkns”k fd dkSu ls vf/kdkjh iz”ui= rS;kj djsxsa ,oa dkSu ls vf/kdkjh mÙkjiqfLrdk dk eqY;kadu djsxsa] izkIr ugha djus ds fy;s nks’kh gSaA blh izdkj fcuk Li’V fu;e rFkk fcuk mPpkf/kdkjh ds vkns”k ds vius euksuqdwy <ax ls iz”ui= ,oa mÙkjiqfLrdk ds eqY;kadu ds dk;Z ds cVokjk djus ds fy;s Jh >k] elqvk@leLrhiqj ftEesokj gSaA 9 --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- mi fu’d’kZ % Jh lgkrk dk vius Li’Vhdj.k esa izFker% ;g dguk fd eS Lo;a vU; lnL;ksa ds lkFk “khYM fyQkQs esa j[ks x;s iz”ui= ds lkFk ijh{kk d{k esa mifLFkr gqvk Fkk ,oa iqu% ;g dguk fd iz”ui= [kqys :i esa ugha yk;k x;k Fkk D;ksafd eSus iz”ui= dk f”kYM fyQkQk ijh{kk “kq: gksus ds 10 feuV igys ps;jeSu lkgc ds czhQds”k esa j[k fn;k Fkk ,d nwljs dk fojks/kHkk’kh gSA tks p;u lfefr ds iz”udrkZ ds :i esa Jh lgksrk }kjk d`r dkjokbZ dks lafnX) cukrk gS] D;ksa fd Jh ,-,u- >k] elqvk@ leLrhiqj }kjk miyC) djk;k x;k fyQkQk ftlesa iz”ui- j[kk x;k Fkk] ij Jh lgkrk dk u gLrk{kj gS vkSj ugh Jh lgksrk }kjk iz”ui= lkSis tkus laca/kh dksbZ Lo=a= dkxtkr p;u fefly esa miyC) gSA bl izdkj jsyos cksMZ ds mDr i= ds funsZ”kkuqlkj vius nkf;Ro ds fuoZgu ugha djus ds fy;s Jh lgksrk ftEesokj gSaA --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- mi fu’d’kZ % vko”;drk ls vf/kd iz”ui= dk photostate djk;s tkus ,oa bldh lgh la[;k Kkr ugha gksus ds dkj.k iz”ui= ds xyr bLrseky ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS ,oa blds fy;s Jh lgksrk rFkk Jh >k la;qdr :i ls ftEesokj gSA --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- mi fu’d’kZ % Jh ,-,u->k] elqvk@leLrhiqj dk mDr fØ;kdyki izlax/khu p;u esa iz”ui= ds fy;s O;ogkj esa yk;s fyQkQs dks lafnX) cukrk gS ,oa p;u dh fu’i{krk dks iznf”kZr ugha djrk gS D;ksafd p;u ls lacaf/kr xksiuh; Proeeding File esa gh iz”ui= ls lacaf/kr fyQkQk layXu jguk vfuok;Z FkkA vr% Jh ,-,u->k mDr ds fy;s ftEesokj gSA --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- mi fu’d’kZ % Jh ,p- ds flag LVkQ vkfQlj@gkthiqj us jsyos cksMZ ds i=kad E (NG)1-98/PM1/17 fnukad 20-10-99 ds en la[;k 9-1 ,oa 9-1 ds Note ¼2½ esa of.kZr funsZ”k ds ikyu ugha djus gsrq ftEesokj gSA Coding dh izfØ;k Jh izeksn dqekj flagk] 10 xksiuh; vk”kqfyfid v/khu elqvk@leLrhiqj }kjk fd;k x;k gS ,oa mDr Code ij dsoy gLrk{kj djus dk dk;Z Jh ,p- ds- flag] }kjk fd;k x;kA bl ?kksj nks’kiw.kZ Coding izfØ;k ds rgr mÙkjiqfLrdk ds Coding djus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha jg tkrk gSA - ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- mi fu’d’kZ % mDr fooj.k ls Li’V gS fd mÙkjiqfLrdk ds eqY;kadudrkZ Jh ,- ,u->k] elqvk@ leLrhiqj }kjk jsyos cksMZ ds i=kad E (NG)1-98/PM1/17 fnukad 20-10-99 ds en la[;k 9-1 ds uksV &5 ,oa 6 esa of.kZr fuEu funsZ”k dk mya?ku fd;k x;k gS ,oa Conducting Officer ds :i esa Hkh LoPN okrkoj.k esa ijh{kk lEiUu djkus esa foQy jgus ds fy;s Hkh Jh >k ftEesokj gSA --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- mi fu’d’kZ % o’kZ 2000 ls 2004 rd ds xksiuh; jiV ds vk/kkj ij vad ds vkoaVu dj fu;e 70-3 ds ikyu ugha djus gsrq la;qdr :i ls p;u lfefr ds rhuksa lnL; ftEesokj gSaA mi fu"d’kZ % jslqc fu;e 1987 esa mDr izdkj ls dkjokbZ djus dk funsZ”k ugha gksus ds ckotwn Hkh eqlqvk egksn; }kjk p;u lfefr ls fuEu Lrj dk ,d dfefV dk xBu dj ukfedk vuqeksnu ls iwoZ p;u izfØ;k dk tkWp djkuk fu;ekuqdwy ugha gS ,oa blds fy;s eqlqvk egksn; ftEesokj gSaA fu’d’kZ % fdlh Hkh p;u dh izfØ;k fjfDr ds x.kuk ¼leqnkf;d cVokjk lfgr½ ls izkjaHk gksrh gS ,oa lekiu ukfedk ds vuqeksnu ls gksrk gSA en la[;k 7-1 ls 7-11 rd of.kZr rF;ksa ls Li’V gksrk gS fd %& 1- izlaxk/khu p;u ds fy;s xyr <ax ls dh xbZ fjfDr dh x.kuk] copy code& 241] 252] 262 ,oa 354 ds ijh{kkFkhZ tks ijh{kk esa lQy ?kksf’kr gq;s gSa ,oa ftudk copy eqY;kadu disallow gsrq gksuk pkfg;s] ds dkj.k ijh{kkQy esa gks jgs Vitiation ds QyLo:i ijh{kkQy fujLr fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA 2- en la[;k 7-9 esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij jsyos cksMZ ds i=kad E(NG) 1-98/PM-1/17 fnukad 20-10-99 ds en la[;k 9-1 ds uksV & 5 ,oa 6 esa of.kZr funsZ”kkuqlkj mÙkjiqfLrdk dk eqY;kadu ugha djus gsrq Jh ,-,u->k] elqvk@ leLrhiqj 11 ftEesokj gSA 3- fjfDr dh x.kuk rS;kj fd;s fcuk gh dh xbZ gS] ftlls v-tk ,oa v-t-tk- gsrq vkjf{kr inksa dh la[;k lgh <ax ls xf.kr ugha gks ik;h gS] ftlds fy;s Jh cS|ukFk jke] dk;kZf/k & 11 ,oa Jh “kadj ewjew] eqdk;kZf/k la;qDr :i ls ftEesokj gSA 4- jsyos lqj{kk cy fu;e 1987 ,oa jsyos cksMZ ds i=kad E(NG) 1-98/PM-1/17 fnukad 20-10-99 esa of.kZr funsZ”kksa ds vuqlkj izlaxk/khu p;u izfØ;k dks iw.kZ ugh djkus ds fy;s p;u lfefr ds rhuksa lnL; ;Fkk Jh ,-,u->k] elqvk@leLrhiqj] Jh Mh-,l- lgksrk] iz/kkukpk;Z] jslqc izf”k{k.k dsUnz@ eksdkek?kkV ,oa Jh ,p-ds- flag] ,-,l-lh@LVkQ vkWfQlj@ gkthiqj ftEesokj gSA 5- p;u esa lQy djkus gsrq :i;s ds ysu nsu ;k bl dk;Z esa dfFkr :i ls en la[;k &5 esa of.kZr deZpkfj;ksa@ vf/kdkjh;ksa ds lafyIr gksus dk vkjksi fl) djuk laHko ugha gS] ijUrq Jh izeksn dqekj flag] xksiuh; vk”kqfyfid v/khu elqvk@leLrhiqj ftuls iz”ui= ds Photostate djkus esa rFkk mÙkjiqfLrdk ds coding ds dk;Z esa lgk;ksx fy;k x;k ,oa ftuds ikl elqvk@leLrhiqj ds xksiuh; vuqHkkx ds dkxtkr jgrs gS] ij izlaxk/khu p;u ds laca/k esa yxk;s x;s vkjksi ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA 6- Panel approving authority }kjk ukfedk dk vuqeksnu ugha djds ukfedk dh tkWp p;u lfefr ls fuEu Lrj dh lfefr xfBr dj djk;k tkuk] ftldk izko/kku jslqc fu;e 1987 esa ugh gS] fu;e ds fo:) dh xbZ dkjokbZ gS] ftlds fy;s eq[; lqj{kk vk;qDr@kthiqj ftEesokj gSA 7- izlaxk/khu p;u ls Li’V gksrk gS fd jksLVj jftLVj rS;kj fd;s fcuk gh fjfDr dh x.kuk djus ls ysdj] p;u lfefr ds xBu] iz”ui= rS;kj djus] mÙkjiqfLrdk ds eqY;kdau djus] mÙkjiqfLrdk ds coding dk dk;kZ djus ,oa ukfedk ds vuqeksnu vkfn ds lHkh Lrjksa ij p;u ds laca/k esa js-lq-c- fu;e 1987] Hkkjrh; jsy LFkkiuk eSuqvy esa of.kZr funsZ”k rFkk jsyos cksMZ }kjk le;&le; ij tkjh funsZ”kksa ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh ugh dh xbZ gSA vr% bl laca/k esa DG@RPF dks js-lq-c- laoxZ ds lHkh dksfV;ksa ds p;u esa Hkkjrh; jsy LFkkiuk eSuqvy esa of.kZr funsZ”k rFkk jsyos cksMZ }kjk le;&le; ij tkjh funsZ”kksa ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh lqfuf”pr djkus gsrq System Improvement ls laca/kh ,d uksV fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA It is evident on a perusal of the findings in the enquiry report that it was overtaken by wholesale malaise, and a large number of persons 12 had contributed to the invalidity of the selection process. It is relevant to state that, as has been indicated hereinabove, D S Sahota, Member of the Board, had submitted the report certifying completion of the training course, was involved in the selection process at different stages and was responsible for a number of purposive mistakes. We entirely agree with the impugned orders. The entire selection process was replete with planned mistakes for favour and disfavour, and it does not seem to be possible to disentangle the unblemished from the blemished ones. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has rightly relied on the judgment of this Court in Sunil Kumar v. State of Bihar (supra), wherein the entire selection process was cancelled because of large- scale malaise and all-pervasive irregularities. That was a case where the Bihar Public Service Commission had conducted the selection process for selection for promotion from amongst class-III employees of the Bihar Government to the next higher cadre of gazetted ranks. While a batch of writ petitions was pending in this Court challenging the validity of the selection process, the Vigilance Department of the Bihar Government had conducted investigation, arrested the Chairman, two members, the previous Chairman, a number of functionaries of the Commission, and a large number of candidates who had paid money to them, as a result of which the entire selection process was cancelled by this Court. The common factor in both the cases is that the irregularities were so large-scale that it is not possible to separate the grain from the chaff, the blemished from the unblemished. We must sound the requisite note of caution that 13 the judgment was handed down by one of us (S K Katriar,J.), sitting singly. The same is being relied upon for the limited purpose of disposal of the present appeal, and should not be taken to be an affirmance of that judgment because the same is not in appeal before us. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the principles of natural justice were not observed. Law is well settled that, in case of such all-pervasive irregularities, the principles of natural justice may not be observed, and notices to the individually affected persons may not be issued. The authorities are, however, required to conduct an enquiry of general nature to satisfy themselves that mass-scale irregularities had taken place in the selection process or examinations. In the present case, we are fully convinced that the authorities conducted a thorough enquiry to go into the details of the selection process and on the basis of the same did satisfy themselves that it was a case of large-scale irregularities which cannot be condoned. It will bear repetition to state that D S Sahota, Security Commissioner-cum-Principal, RPF Training Centre, Mokamaghat, who was a member of the Board which had conducted the training course certifying successful completion of the same, was actively associated at different stages of the selection process, and contributed to this invalidity. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed before us the communication dt. 24.12.2007 (Annexure –D), from the Joint Director (Vigilance), to the General Manager, (Vigilance), Eastern Central Railway, informing him that action should be taken against 14 the persons who were responsible for the irregularities in the selection process. The communication is of 24.1.2.2007, is part of the respondent’s counter affidavit sworn on 26.11.2010, and does not state at all the action taken against the erring persons. Learned counsel for the parties, however, submitted before us on instructions which in substance comes to the position that action was taken against the erring persons which was an eye-wash. This fault undoubtedly operates against the respondents. However, keeping in view the thoroughness of the enquiry report, we are of the view that inadequate action, or no action, against the erring persons should not detract us from our conclusion. 12. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal. We agree with the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S K Katriar, J. ) Vikash Jain, J. I agree. ( Vikash Jain, J.) Patna High Court, Patna The 15th of July 2011 AFR/mrl