IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9237 of 2006 Abhay Kumar Singh son of Deep Narayan Singh, resident of village & PO- Ekauna Ghat, PS Barahara, District Bhojpur (Ara) ..... Petitioner VERSUS 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of India, New Delhi 2. The Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Patna 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Patna 4. The Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Group Centre, Mokama Gat, District Patna 5. The Commandant, 11 Battalion Central Reserve Poloice Force, Mokama Ghat, District Patna. .... Respondents ------ For the Petitioner : M/s Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Senior Advocate with Shanti Pratap, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs Anita Sinha, Advocate WITH CWJC No.16319 of 2006 Sanjay Kumar Singh, son of Shri Man Singh, Resident of Village Baraura, PS Ramgarh, District Bhabhua (Kaimur) .... Petitioner VERSUS 1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Home, New Delhi 2. The Director General of Police, CRPF, CGO Complex, New Delhi 3. The Inspector General of Police, Bihar Sector, CRPF, Patna 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Patna 5. Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Muzaffarpur 6. Commandant, 36 BN, CRPF, C/0 Additional DIG, CRPF, Group Centre, Mokama Ghat, Bihar .... Respondents ------ For the Petitioner : Mr Satish Chandra Jha-3, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr Aminuddin Ahmad Khan, Advocate ------- 2 6 05.2.2009 WITH CWJC No.2229 of 2007 Amit Kumar Gupta son of Vijai Prasad Gupta, R/o Main Road Hilsa, PS Hilsa, Distt. Nalanda .... Petitioner VERSUS 1. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi 2. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi 3. IG Police (Bihar Sector) CRPF, Patna (Bihar) 4.Addl. IG, CRPF, Muzaffarpur Range, Muzaffarpur 5. DIG IG CRPF Muzaffarpur Range, Muzaffarpur 6. DIG, CRPF, Sindari 7. Commandant 114 Batalian, CRPF, Tura Meghalaya .... Respondents ------ For the Petitioner : M/s Rewti Kant Raman with Gopal Sharan, Advocates ------ Heard the parties in all the three writ petitions. Petitioners were selected as constables in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) pursuant to an advertisement dated 13.8.2002. They were given appointment letters in the year 2003 and they joined their service in their respective Battalion assigned to them. It appears that complaints were received regarding bungling in the recruitment process for which an investigation was undertaken by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). During the pendency of such investigation, the petitioners were directed to go back to their homes. It was given to understand that if the 3 investigation would go in their favour then they shall be asked to report back to their work. It is the case of the petitioners that without any notice to them and without holding any enquiry to their knowledge by the impugned orders, all dated 23.6.2006, petitioners were removed from service. This action was purportedly taken on the basis of report of the CBI. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that in identical situation several writ petitions have been allowed by this Court on the ground that CBI did not find any case against the constables appointed or against the petitioners and on considering that no enquiry was held after notice to the petitioners. It has been submitted that cases of similar constables of CRPF have been allowed vide order dated 27.2.2006 passed in CWJC No.14711 of 2004 (Pradip Kumar Mishra v. Union of India) and CWJC No.927 of 2005 (Awadhesh Kumar v. Union of India ). It has further been submitted that Letters Patent Appeals against orders of learned single Judges allowing writ petitions, have been dismissed by Division Bench of this Court. One such LPA bearing No.769 of 2008 is said to have been dismissed on 30.9.2008. On behalf of the Union of India it has been 4 submitted that a perusal of the report of CBI would show that bungling in the selection process was detected but no criminal case was found by the CBI against the selected constables or against the members, Board of Recruitment. It is the case of the respondents that in the internal enquiry the CRPF found that bungling had been committed in recruitment and being beneficiaries of such bungling, the services of the petitioners had to be terminated. In view of admitted fact that no notice was ever given to the petitioners in any such enquiry, this Court has no option but to follow the earlier orders passed by other Benches of this Court in cases noticed above. Following those orders, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders, all dated 23.6.2006, are quashed. The authorities of CRPF are directed to accept the joining of the petitioners in the Battalion and pay the entire arrears of salary till the date of joining and to pay current salary thereafter. It is made clear that if the authorities of CRPF have materials with them in the form of enquiry report of CBI or any other enquiry to support their stand, they may act in accordance with law after permitting the petitioners to join their service. This observation is in accordance with order dated 27.7.2006 passed in MJC No.1306 of 2006 in which the prayer of the 5 Union of India for modification of orders passed in CWJC Nos.14711 of 2004 and 927 of 2005 were dealt with and disposed of with similar observations. Appellate orders, if any, passed against the petitioners shall also stand quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk