These four (4) writ petitions involve the common question of facts and laws and, as such, I propose to dispose of these four writ petitions by a common judgment at this stage. 2. Heard Shri BP Sahu, learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as Shri A. Jagat Chandra Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. In these petitions the writ petitioner have challenged the validity of the orders of dismissal passed by the Commandant, 8th Battalion, Manipur Rifles, Leilun, Manipur, the 2nd respondent in these cases, on 17th May, 1995 with immediate effect from the date of issue of the order of dismissal. The dismissal order was passed by the 2nd respondent by invoking the provisions of law contemplated under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India on the ground that the cases involve the security of the State and also because of the likelihood of causing damage to the image of MR personnel in Police Department and administration before general public in event of holding such an enquiry. 4. For better appreciation of the facts and law, the impugned dismissal order is hereby reproduced and quoted as below : xxxx  xxxxx xxxx 5. On the bare perusal of the impugned dismissal order, it virtually amounts to an order passed by a competent authority by invoking the provisions of Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution inasmuch as the matter involves the security of the State. Under Article 311 (2) (c) only the President of India or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such enquiry as required under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. In the instant case no enquiry was held as against the writ petitioners and also no reason is assigned by the competent authority for exemption for holding any enquiry into the matter. Moreover, the Commandant, 8th Battalion, Manipur Rifles, Leikun, the second respondent has no jurisdiction and power to pass the impugned dismissal order dated 17th May, 1995 as in Annexure A/1 to the writ petition by invoking the provisions of Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution. 6. In my considered view this impugned order is an order passed without jurisdiction. 7. In the foregoing reasons, the impugned dismissal order is hereby set aside. 6. In my considered view this impugned order is an order passed without jurisdiction. 7. In the foregoing reasons, the impugned dismissal order is hereby set aside. The respondents particularly respondent No.2 are directed to take back the writ petitioners in service within a period of 7 days from today the date of receipt of this order. 8. As the impugned dismissal order was passed without jurisdiction, by the second respondent, it cannot be deemed that the writ petitioners were dismissed from their services under due process of law. Accordingly, the petitioners shall be entitled for their back salary for the period from 17.5.1995. 9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. The petitioners may obtain a certified copy of this order and may place the same before the competent authority for needful order in the matter.