Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 276 (PAT)

Santosh Kumar Son Of Anil Kumar v. Union Of India

2009-02-17

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in all these three writ petitions and learned counsel appearing for the Union of India and other concerned officials. 2. All the petitioners were selected as Constables in the Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.) pursuant to an advertisement dated 13.8.2002. On appointment in the year 2003 they joined their services in their respective Battalion assigned to them. On account of alleged bungling in the recruitment process an investigation was undertaken by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). During the pendency of the investigation some of the petitioners were directed to go back to their home while some continued to work. It was understood that if the investigation would end in their favour, then those who were relieved for home will be taken back. 3. 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, in the first case dated 7th July, 2006 and in the other two cases dated 23rd. February, 2006 a decision was taken to remove them from service purportedly on the basis of report of the C.B.I. In some cases the order of removal so communicated has also been challenged. 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 on ground that no enquiry was held after notice to the petitioners. 4. After noticing judgment and orders of this Court dated 27.2.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14711 of 2004 (Pradeep Kumar Mishra V/s. The Union of India and Others) and C.W.J.C. No. 927 of 2005 (Awadhesh Kumar Singh vs. The Union of India and Others), three other writ petitions bearing C.W.J.C. No. 9237 of 2006 (Abhay Kumar Singh vs. The Union of India and Others), C.W.J.C. No. 16319 of 2006 (Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. the Union of India and Others) and C.W.J.C. No. 2229 of 2007 (Amit Kumar Gupta vs. The Union of India) were allowed by judgment and order of this Court dated 5.2.2009. It was also noticed that one L.P.A. bearing No. 769 of 2008 was dismissed by the Division Bench on 30.9.2008 passed in the case of Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Others. It was also noticed that one L.P.A. bearing No. 769 of 2008 was dismissed by the Division Bench on 30.9.2008 passed in the case of Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Others. It appears that some other similar writ petitions have also been allowed. After perusing the judgment and order dated 5.2.2009 passed by this Court as indicated above and after considering the submissions advanced on behalf of similarly situated petitioners and on behalf of the Union of India, this Court finds that admittedly no notice was ever given to the petitioners in any enquiry. Hence following the earlier judgment and order noticed above, these three writ petitions are also allowed and the impugned orders of removal from service are quashed. In some of the cases the appellate order and revisional order have also been challenged. Those orders shall also stand quashed. The authorities of the C.R.P.F. are directed to accept the joining of the petitioners in the concerned Battalions and pay the entire arrears of salary till the date of joining and to pay them current salary thereafter. It is made clear that if the authorities of the C.R.P.F. have materials with them in the form of enquiry report of the C.B.I. or of any other enquiry to support their stand against the petitioners then they may act in accordance with law after permitting petitioners to join their services. This observation is in accordance with a similar observation made by this Court in judgment and order dated 5.2.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9237 of 2006 and other analogous cases already noticed earlier. The writ petitions are allowed.