IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9937 of 2006 NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH , son of late Dhurb Narain Singh, resident of Village - Siaruan, P.O. Siaruan, P.S. Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur. Petitioner Versus 1 .THE UNION OF INDIA through the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi 2. The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Kendriya Karyalaya Parishad, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 3. The Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Bihar Sector, Baile Road, Sheikhpura, Patna. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force , Muzaffarpur-842001, Bihar 5. The Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Mokama Ghat Group Center, Patna, Bihar. 6. The Commandant-116 BN C.R.P.F., Dhaligaon, Assam .......... Respondents. With CWJC No.12181 of 2006 SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH, S/O Shri Prayag Singh, resident of village Ishwarpura, P.O. Milki Ishwarpura, P.S. Shahpur, District Bhojpur .......... Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi 2. The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Kendriya Karyalaya Parishad, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 3. The Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. Bihar Sector, C.R.P.F. Bailey Road, Sheikhpura, Patna. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Muzaffarpur- 842001, Bihar 5. The Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Mokama Ghat Group Centre, Patna. 6. The Commandant-116th Battalion C.R.P.F. Dhaligaon, BGGN (Assam) ......... Respondents. ------------ Advocate for the Petitioners C.W.J.C.No.9937 of 2006 1. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha & 2. Mr. Mirtunjay Kumar Advocate for the Respondents Mrs. Anita Sinha, Advocate for the Union of India. ----------------- Advocate for the Petitioners in C.W.J.C.No.12181 of 2006 1. Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey No.1 & 2. Mr. Om Prakash Upadhyay - 2 - For the Union of India:- Mr. Sudhir Singh, Asst. S.G. 4 5-3-2009 Heard the parties. In both the writ petitions petitioners were selected as constables in 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 services in their respective Battalion assigned to them. It appears that complaints were received regarding bungling in the recruitment process and investigation was undertaken by the Central Bureau of Investigation ( C.B.I.) . During the pendency of such investigation the petitioners have been removed from service by the impugned orders both dated 7-7-2006. Such action was purportedly on the basis of report of the C.B.I. On behalf of petitioners it has been submitted that in identical situation several writ petitions have been allowed by this Court on the ground that C.B.I. did not find any case against the constables appointed or against the petitioners and also no enquiry was held after notice to the petitioners. It has been shown that C.W.J.C. 9237 of 2006 along with two other writ petitions were allowed on 5-2-2009 by this Court after noticing some earlier judgments mentioned in the said order. On behalf of Union of India it has been submitted that report of C.B.I. disclosed bungling in the selection process but no criminal case was found by the C.B.I. against the selected candidates or even against the Members, Board of Recruitment. It is the case of - 3 - Naresh the respondents that in the internal enquiry the C.R.P.F. found that bungling had been committed in recruitment and being beneficiaries of such bunglings, services of the petitioners had to be terminated. In view of admitted facts that no notice was ever given to the petitioners in any enquiry before removal from service, this Court has no option but to follow the earlier judgments and order passed by different Benches of this Court. Following those orders both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order both dated 7-7-2006 and its consequential orders if any, shall stand quashed. The Authorities of the C.R.P.F. are directed to accept the joining of the petitioners in the concerned Battalion and pay the entire arrears of salary till the date of joining and to pay them their current salary thereafter. It is made clear that if the Authorities of C.R.P.F. have materials with them in the form of enquiry report of the C.B.I. or any other enquiry to support their stand against the petitioners then they may act in accordance with law after permitting the petitioners to join their services. Both the writ petitions are accordingly allowed. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J)