JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - These are eight special appeals which raise common questions and it is convenient to decide them by a common judgement. 2. The respondents were appointed as loco cleaners in the Northern Railway between 1959 and 1960. According to the conditions of service such employees were required to be medically examined at the time of appointment and every three years thereafter. Near about the expiry of three years' period they were medically examined in July,1963 and they were declared fit in accordance with the standard prescribed for such employees who had completed three years' service. Later on it appears that the appointing authorities felt that the respondents had actually failed at the medical examination undergone by them at the time of their original appointment. They considered that the case was covered by the Railway Board's letter dated 5.5.1952 which proved:- "Employees who were not examined medically at the time of appointment, for any reason, should not be medically examined, with relaxation that standards at re-examination during the service may be applied to them if they had put in six years or more of continuous service on the railway." The case taken up by the railway authorities in the counter affidavit was that the respondents had appeared at the medical examination prior to their appointment. They had failed in that examination but some how they manipulated to get entries in their service records of medical fitness and on that basis obtained appointment letters. The authorities treated the respondents as have really not appeared at the medical examination and applying to the Railway Board's directive contained in letter dated 5.5.1952 directed the respondent to appear at the medical examination again. This medical examination was conducted by the Divisional Medical Officer, Allahabad, on or about 28th November, 1963. he examined them according to the standard prescribed for candidates for appointment. Applying that standard, the respondents were declared medically unfit. On the basis of this medical examination the authorities served upon the respondents a notice requiring them to show cause why they should not be discharged from service on the ground that they had been declared medically unfit. The respondents filed an explanation, but that was not considered satisfactory. The Divisional Personnel Officer ultimately passed an order on 14th February,1964 discharging the respondents from service on the ground of medical unfitness. 3. The respondents filed an explanation, but that was not considered satisfactory. The Divisional Personnel Officer ultimately passed an order on 14th February,1964 discharging the respondents from service on the ground of medical unfitness. 3. The respondents challenged this order by way of writ petitions. A learned single Judge held that the discharge from service on the ground of medical fitness per se amounted to punishment within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Since the order was passed in violation of Article 311 (2), it was void. 4. Before the learned single Judge it was argued on behalf of the Railway Administration that the initial order of appointment was void. It had been obtained by the respondents by practising fraud and forgery. The learned single Judge went into this question and found that the plea was not substantiated. he also expressed the opinion that the appellants should have held a proper enquiry after affording an opportunity to the respondents to meet the case before the services could be terminated on any such grounds. On these findings the writ petitions were allowed and the notices of discharge were set aside. Aggrieved, the Railway Administration has come up in appeals. 5. From the averments made by the appellants in their counter affidavit it is clear that the respondents had appeared at the medical examination at the time of their original appointment. The controversy between the parties is whether they were declared fit or unfit in that examination. The fact that the respondents appeared at the medical examination. The fact that the respondents appeared at the medical examination being admitted, the Railway Board's letter dated 5.5.1952 becomes in-applicable. That directive applied only to a situation where an employee has not been examined medically at the time of his appointment. Obviously, that directive will not apply to an employee who has in fact been examined at the time of appointment. This directive not being applicable, the re-examination of the respondents in November,1963 was without the authority of any provision in the conditions of service. it is evident that the order of discharge is based only upon the result of medical examination held in November,1963. Since the authorities were not entitled in law to have the respondents medically examined again on the basis of standard fixed for candidates, the order of discharge becomes illegal. it is evident that the order of discharge is based only upon the result of medical examination held in November,1963. Since the authorities were not entitled in law to have the respondents medically examined again on the basis of standard fixed for candidates, the order of discharge becomes illegal. In this context it will be appropriate to mention that the periodical medical examination of the respondents held in July,1963 went to their favour. They were declared medically fit because the standard was slightly different. 6. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the order of discharge need not be interfered with because the original order of appointment was obtained by the respondents by practising fraud and forgery. This submission makes a serious charge of misconduct against the respondents. The impugned order of discharge was not based on any such ground. This plea was hence outside the purview of the controversy raised in the writ petitions. Admittedly the authorities have not undertaken any confronted their defence to such serious charges. Under the circumstances the learned single Judge ought not to have permitted the appellants to raise such a plea. We hence decline to express any opinion on it barring saying that if the appellants are so desirous, it will be open to them to pass a fresh order based upon any such ground. 7. In the result the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed subject to the observations made above. The parties may, however, bear their own costs.