ORDER The aforesaid two writ petitions were heard together as analogous cases and are being decided by this common order as petitioners of both the writ petitions are Constables (General Duty) in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CRPF’ for the sake of brevity), all having been appointed on the same date, i.e. 04th July, 2003 after having succeeded in physical efficiency test, written examination, medical examination and interview. Some of them belong to general category, whereas some of them belong to reserved categories, but all of them were appointed on the basis of same advertisement dated 13.08.2002 and the reliefs claimed in the aforesaid two writ petitions are exactly the same and the authorities impleaded as respondents are common in both the writ petitions. 2. The first writ petition has been filed by three petitioners challenging letter no.P-8-3-(SK)/9-Estt.-2/Pairvi, Letter No.P-8-3-(SKS)/9-Estt.-2/Pairvi, P- 8 -3- (SKY)/9- Est..-2/Pairvi, all dated 10th December, 2010 (Annexure-15 Series /P-156) issued under the signature of the Commandant, Office of the DIG, Group Centre, Muzaffarpur, by which the petitioners had been removed from their services and also challenging letter No.R-XIII-1 (SK)/2011-EC-2/Pairvi dated 22.2.2011, R- XIII-1 (SKS)/2011-EC-2/Pairvi dated 3.3.2011 and R-XIII-1 (SKY)/2011-EC-2/Pairvi dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure-17 series/P-184) all issued under the signature of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Group Centre, Muzaffarpur by which the appeals filed by the petitioners had been rejected and further challenging Letter No. R-XIII-1. (SK)/2011-BS-EC-3 dated 28.06.2011, R-XIII-1 (MKJ)/2011-BS-EC-3 dated 23.06.2011 and R-XIII-1 (V.S)/2011- BS-EC-3 dated 23.6.2011 (Annexure-19 series/P-224) all issued under the signature of the Inspector General of Police, Bihar Central Reserve Police force, by which the revision petitions filed by the petitioners had been rejected and further praying for issuance of consequential writ directing and commanding the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioners in service with all consequential benefits and/order for issuance of any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions which seem just and equitable in the facts and circumstances stated hereunder. 3. 3. The second writ petition has been filed by other three petitioners challenging letter no.P-8-3-(KKS)/2009-Estt.-2/Pairvi, Letter No.P-8-3-(RNP)/2009-Estt.-2/Pairvi, P- 8 -3- (VS)/2009- Est..-2/Pairvi, all dated 10th December, 2010 (Annexure-15 Series /P-153) issued under the signature of the Commandant, office of the DIG, Group Centre, Muzaffarpur, by which the petitioners had been removed from the service and also challenging letter No.R-XIII-1 (KKS)/2011-EC-2/Pairvi dated 23.2.2011, R- XIII-1 (RNP)/2011-EC-2/Pairvi dated 25.2.2011 and R-XIII-1 (VS)/2011-EC-2/Pairvi dated 24.02.2011 (Annexure-17 series/P-180) all issued under the signature of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Group Centre, Muzaffarpur by which the appeals filed by the petitioners had been rejected and further challenging Letter No. R-XIII-1. (KKS) 2011-BS-EC-3 dated 22.06.2011, R-XIII (RNP) 2011-BS-EC-3 dated 10.06.2011 and R- XIII-1 (VS) 2011- BS-EC-3 dated 23.6.2011 (Annexure-19 series/P-217) all issued under the signature of the Inspector General of Police, Bihar Central Reserve Police Force, by which the revision petitions filed by the petitioners had been rejected and further praying for issuance of consequential writ directing and commanding the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioners in service with all consequential benefits and/order for issuance of any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions which seem just and equitable in the facts and circumstances stated hereunder. 4. In both the aforesaid writ petitions their respective learned counsel argued that the first two petitioners of the first writ petition belong to general category, whereas petitioner no.3 of the first writ petition and all the three petitioners of the second writ petition belong to OBC category and all of them applied for the posts of Constable (GD) in response to the advertisement duly published by the authorities, whereafter they were selected after being found fit in all the tests, interview etc. and after appointment they joined their respective posts and continued in service. Thereafter on 28.03.2004 all the appointees were asked to go back to their homes as investigation in regard to the appointment process in question was undertaken by the Central Bureau of Investigation. However, the said appointment process was found valid as per the report of the CBI dated 01.12.2004, but the said appointees were not allowed to join by the authorities concerned. 5. However, the said appointment process was found valid as per the report of the CBI dated 01.12.2004, but the said appointees were not allowed to join by the authorities concerned. 5. In the said circumstances, several appointees moved this Court vide CWJC No.14711 of 2001, CWJC No.927 of 2005, CWJC No.2179 of 2006, CWJC No.2312 of 2006, CWJC No.2559 of 2004, CWJC No.5231 of 2004 which were allowed by various orders of this Court, including orders dated 27.02.2006 and 13.09.2006 (Annexure-4 series) holding that as the petitioners were not responsible for the impasse which was created on account of investigation being made in the process and mode of appointment of the petitioners, the CRPF authorities were directed not only to accept the joining of the petitioners in the Battalion, but also to pay the entire arrears of salary from the date of issuance of letter by which they were asked to go back to their homes till the date of joining in terms of the said order as also arrears of salary if any for the period between the initial date of joining pursuant to the appointment letter dated 04.07.2003 till the issuance of letter by which they were stopped from working and were directed to go back to their homes. 6. Against the aforesaid orders, the respondents-authorities filed LPA No.578 of 2006 and LPA No.185 of 2007, but both the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed in limine by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.08.2008 and 30.09.2008 respectively (Annexure-6 series). 7. Much thereafter letters dated 04.11.2009 (Annexure-8 series) were issued to all the six petitioners of the two writ petitions holding that since the candidates did not qualify in terms of Recruitment Rules for their initial appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in CRPF, yet their selection to the post was a misconduct under Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Accordingly, enquiry was initiated in the light of liberty granted by the Hon’ble High Court Patna against the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioners holding them to be wrongful gainers and article of charge was issued to all of them. 8. Accordingly, enquiry was initiated in the light of liberty granted by the Hon’ble High Court Patna against the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioners holding them to be wrongful gainers and article of charge was issued to all of them. 8. So far charge against petitioner nos.1 and 2 of the first writ petition is concerned, the article of charge alleged that they were aspirant for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in CRPF in general category from Muzaffarpur Centre during the recruitment of constable (GD) Male 2002 conducted in the State of Bihar. The said CT/GD after successfully penetrating through the physical measurement and physical efficiency test etc. was invited for written test conducted on 03.12.2002. Prior to commencement of the written examination, there was clear instruction for the candidates/aspirants from the Board of Officers that any overwriting/cutting in the objective type questions will not be considered and no credit for such question will be allowed. This instruction was also inscripted upon question-cum-answer sheets provided to the candidates. However, the said petitioners were allowed 01 mark for equal number of over writing committed by them in objective type questions. The said candidates were allowed marks for overwriting against objective type question no.05 and 20 respectively rendering 01 un-entitled mark to their credit which subsequently ensured their selection to the posts of Constables (GD). However, the lapse/omission committed by the Board which wrongfully carved the way for selection of the undeserving candidates were subsequently detected by another Board of Officers detailed by IGP Bihar Sector CRPF, Patna. The Board has established that the said petitioners were actually entitled to 30 marks in written test against the allotted 31 which takes the aggregate to 59 instead of 60 allotted to them. The minimum cut off marks for a general category candidate for selection as CT/GD in CRPF during the year 2002 was 59% against which the said petitioners secured 59%, hence although they were juniors in waiting list, they were issued offer of appointment to the post of CT/GD which substantiates that they were wrongful gainer enlisted in CRPF. 9. The minimum cut off marks for a general category candidate for selection as CT/GD in CRPF during the year 2002 was 59% against which the said petitioners secured 59%, hence although they were juniors in waiting list, they were issued offer of appointment to the post of CT/GD which substantiates that they were wrongful gainer enlisted in CRPF. 9. So far charge against petitioner no.3 of the first writ petition is concerned, the article of charge alleged that he was an aspirant for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in CRPF in OBC category from Katihar Centre during the recruitment of Constable (GD) Male 2002 conducted in the State of Bihar. The said CT/GD after successfully penetrating through the physical measurement and physical efficiency test etc. was invited for written test conducted on 03.12.2002. Prior to commencement of the written examination, there was clear instruction for the candidates/aspirants from the Board of Officers that any overwriting/cutting in the objective type question will not be considered and no credit for such question will be allowed. This instruction was also in-scripted upon question-cum-answer sheets provided to the candidates. However, the said petitioner was allowed 01 mark for equal number of over writing committed by him in objective type questions. The said candidate was allowed marks for overwriting against objective type question no.20 rendering 01 un-entitled mark to his credit which subsequently ensured his selection to the post of Constable (GD). However, the lapse/omission committed by the Board which wrongfully carved the way for selection of the undeserving candidate was subsequently detected by another Board of Officers detailed by IGP Bihar Sector CRPF, Patna. The Board has established that the said petitioner was actually entitled to 21 marks in written test against the allotted 22 which takes the aggregate to 46 instead of 47 allotted to him. The minimum cut off marks for a OBC category candidate for selection as CT/GD in CRPF during the year 2002 was 46% against which the said petitioners secured 46%, hence although he was junior in waiting list, he was issued offer of appointment to the post of CT/GD which substantiates that he was wrongful gainer enlisted in CRPF. 10. The minimum cut off marks for a OBC category candidate for selection as CT/GD in CRPF during the year 2002 was 46% against which the said petitioners secured 46%, hence although he was junior in waiting list, he was issued offer of appointment to the post of CT/GD which substantiates that he was wrongful gainer enlisted in CRPF. 10. So far charge against all three writ petitioners of the second writ petition is concerned, the article of charge alleged that they were aspirants for appointment to the posts of Constables (GD) in CRPF in OBC category from Nalanda Centre during the recruitment of constable (GD) Male 2002 conducted in the State of Bihar. The said CT/GD in an aggregate secured 45.5 marks in all the events of selection process whereas minimum cut off marks for selection of OBC candidate was 46%. Although there was no instruction for rounding off the marks, the 45.5 marks obtained by the candidate was rounded off to 46 by Recruitment Board which ultimately facilitated the petitioners to secure their selection to the posts of constable (GD) in CRPF. However, the lapse/omission committed by the Recruitment Board which wrongfully carved the way for selection of the undeserving candidates was subsequently detected by another Board of Officers detailed by IGP Bihar Sector CRPF, Patna. The Board had established that the said petitioners were actually secured 45.5 marks each which were illegitimately rounded off to 46 marks to facilitate their selection as constable (GD) in CRPF during the year 2002. 11. The Board had established that the said petitioners were actually secured 45.5 marks each which were illegitimately rounded off to 46 marks to facilitate their selection as constable (GD) in CRPF during the year 2002. 11. In the said memorandum of charge, the authority concerned, namely the Commandant (Staff) O/O DIGP, Range, Muzaffarpur also mentioned reasons that notwithstanding the issuance of offer by Group Centre, CRPF, Muzaffarpur for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) to the candidates they were not permitted to join their duties, whereafter aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of the Department some of those candidates filed writ petitions in the High Court of Patna which were ultimately decided in their favour, but the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 27.07.2006 disposed of the modification petition bearing MJC No.1306 of 2006 holding that no modification of the order of the High Court was required as after serving a copy of the enquiry report of the CBI dated 01.12.2004 as also the subsequent report of the CRPF authorities dated 07.04.2005 on the so called wrongful gainers, the CRPF authorities were always at liberty to take action in accordance with law after permitting them to join the Battalion and accordingly the enquiry was initiated in the light of the aforesaid liberty granted by the Hon’ble High Court, Patna against misconduct committed by the wrongful gainers. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the aforesaid charges are absolutely vague and even according to the aforesaid article of charges, petitioners cannot be said to be wrongful gainers. In this connection, he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Surath Chandra Chakravarty Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in AIR 1971 SC 752 . 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the charges against all the three petitioners of the first writ petition show that even after making the deductions as per the charges all the candidates had secured the required marks either in the general category or in the reserved category and hence petitioners having acquired the qualifying marks, even according to the charges, the authorities were not justified in assuming that they were not fit for appointment. 14. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners claimed that charges against all the three petitioners of the second writ petition showed that the alleged illegality committed by the authorities was only that rounding 45.5 marks as 46 marks, but they failed to show any illegality in the same as no provision has been shown by which such rounding off was barred. Furthermore, the vacancies were sufficient and all the candidates securing minimum qualifying marks having been appointed, no error was committed by the authorities concerned in selecting the said petitioners. In this connection, he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences Vs. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman and others, reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 481 as well as another decision of the Apex Court in case of Vijay Syal and another Vs. State of Punjab & Others, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 401 . 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners averred that letter dated 15.04.2005 (Annexure-10) issued by IGP Bihar Sector CRPF did not prove any of the petitioners to be wrongful gainers, rather by the said letter IGP (Pers), Directorate General CRPF was requested to take a decision as to whether (i) the wrongful gainers need be terminated from service even though such action may result in litigations; and (ii) the identified probable gainers amongst 160 candidates awaiting appointment need any consideration keeping in view the fact that they had been given offer of appointment. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that in response to it, letter dated 08.08.2005 (Annexure-10 series) was sent by the Commandant, Directorate General, C.R.P.F. New Delhi to the Inspector General of Police, Bihar Sector, CRPF, Patna directing that the Director General had desired to take actions as mentioned in the said letter. However, the said letter was issued without considering findings of the IGP, CRPF Bihar in his report dated 15.04.2005 nor the said report was ever served upon the petitioners before the witnesses were examined. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the enquiry report dated 01.12.2004 (Annexure-12) submitted by the CBI was a detailed report and nothing in that report showed that any of the petitioners had been proved guilty, rather it was held that no criminal misconduct of such candidates could be established. 18. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the enquiry report dated 01.12.2004 (Annexure-12) submitted by the CBI was a detailed report and nothing in that report showed that any of the petitioners had been proved guilty, rather it was held that no criminal misconduct of such candidates could be established. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners also claimed that during enquiry none of the witnesses made any allegation of connivance of the petitioners in giving any higher marks to them, but in spite of that the enquiry report was submitted on the basis of mere conjectures and surmises which were not at all sufficient to prove any guilt of the petitioners and that too for giving punishment of termination of service. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that since no connivance or any such act of the petitioners having been ever alleged, much less proved, there is nothing to show any misconduct of the petitioners for which they could be punished. In this connection, he relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court in case of Risiklal Vaghajibahi Patel Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & anr. reported in AIR 1985 SC 504 and in case of Raviyashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and others reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 . 20. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners finally argued that there being no allegation of misconduct against the petitioners nor according to the CBI report petitioners were wrongful gainers, nor as per the enquiry report dated 22.09.2010 (Annexure-13) any illegality committed by the petitioners belonging to OBC category having been found, there was no occasion to punish the petitioners by the disciplinary authority vide impugned order dated 10.12.2010 (Annexure-15) which are accordingly fit to be quashed. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioners further claimed that appellate and revisional orders (Annexure-17 series and 19 series) passed by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority had been passed without considering the points raised by the petitioners which were based on settled principles of law nor did the said authorities realized the illegalities committed by the enquiry officer as well as by the disciplinary authority in evaluating the evidence on record in comparison to the allegations levelled against the petitioners and the punishment awarded to them. 22. 22. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-authorities in the first writ petition bearing CWJC No.20366 of 2011 stated that according to their respective appointment letters, the petitioners joined Group Centre, Muzaffarpur in July and August, 2003 respectively and thereafter CBI, Patna raided the said Group Centre on 26.09.2003 and all the dossiers and connected documents/files etc. of all the candidates, including the petitioners, were seized for further investigation and keeping in view of uncertainty of time in finalization of investigation by the CBI, petitioners were directed to return to their homes vide office letter dated 28.03.2004. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that subsequently the CBI enquiry was concluded and a Board of Officers was detailed by I.G.P. Bihar Centre, Patna to check the dossiers/service books of the candidates, where after Board of Officers submitted their report dated 07.04.2005 and after examination in depth the petitioners were found to be ‘wrongful gainers’ and in those circumstances, the Directorate General, CRPF New Delhi vide letter dated 08.08.2005 directed that wrongful gainers may not be issued offer of appointment. 23. Learned counsel for the respondents averred that being aggrieved by the aforesaid order/direction of the authorities, CWJC No.14711 of 2004 and CWJC No.927 of 2005 were filed by some of the aggrieved persons in the Patna High Court which were decided in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 27.02.2006. However, the respondents filed MJC No.1306 of 2006 for modification of the said order and subsequently the said MJC was disposed of on 27.07.2006 holding that no modification in order dated 27.02.2006 was required as the CRPF authorities were always at liberty to take action in accordance with law after permitting the said petitioners to join and after serving a copy of the enquiry report of CBI dated 01.12.2004 and also subsequent report of the CRPF authorities dated 07.04.2005 with respect to ‘wrongful gainers’. 24. Learned counsel for the respondents asserted that the petitioners were also parties in CWJC No.2312 of 2006 which was filed before this Court and was decided by order dated 13.09.2006 in the light of order dated 27.02.2006 passed in CWJC No.14711 of 2004 and CWJC No.927 of 2005 as well as order dated 27.07.2006 passed in MJC No.1306 of 2006 mentioned above. The IGP Bihar Centre, CRPF vide his order dated 12.01.2009 directed the authorities to comply the aforesaid orders of the High Court, where after petitioners were issued joining letters dated 31.01.2009 and they accordingly joined the Group Centre on 24.02.2009 and appointment order was issued on 09.06.2009. 25. Learned counsel for the respondents claimed that in the wake of Court’s order dated 27.07.2006 and 13.09.2006 a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioners vide order dated 04.11.2009 levelling three charges in the Article of charges as has already been detailed in paragraphs 8 and 9 above and accordingly departmental enquiry was conducted as per the laid down procedure giving sufficient and reasonable opportunities to the petitioners by the enquiry officer as well as by the disciplinary authority to defend themselves. However, the charges framed against the petitioners were found proved conclusively and the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of ‘removal from service’ vide order dated 10.12.2010. The said order was challenged by the petitioners in appeals before the DIGP, CRPF who rejected them being devoid of merits vide order dated 22.02.2011, 03.03.2011 and 28.02.2011 respectively. Thereafter the petitioners preferred revisions before the IGP, CRPF which were also rejected being devoid of merits by the revisional authority vide orders dated 28.06.2011, 23.06.2011 and 23.06.2011 respectively. 26. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that from the aforesaid facts it is quite apparent that as per the directions of this Court a thorough enquiry was held giving all the opportunities to the petitioners, whereafter the allegations against them were found to be proved and there was no error in the proceedings as the original orders of petitioners’ removal as well as appellate orders and the revisional orders had been passed after adopting all the prescribed procedures established in law which were quite legal and correct orders and required no interference by this Court and hence the instant writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 27. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that neither there was any bias or prejudice against the petitioners in the mind of the authorities concerned, nor the petitioners had been able to show any such bias or prejudice, nor there was any such occasion and the authorities being bound by the Rules of law and the decisions of this Court had passed the aforesaid orders. In the said circumstances, he claimed that none of the decisions cited by the petitioners is applicable to the facts of the case as mentioned above. 28. Similarly, learned counsel for the respondents-authorities in the second writ petition bearing CWJC No.21162 of 2011 submitted that all the petitioners of this writ petition were OBC candidates and there is no dispute that they had secured 45.5 aggregate marks, whereas securing marks for OBC category to become eligible for getting enlistment in CRPF was 46, but the aggregate marks of 45.5 obtained by the petitioners were rounded off by the Board of Officers as 46 without any valid cause or provision, making the petitioners eligible for enlistment in CRPF. However, since it was later found after investigation that the said rounding off the marks were against the provisions of law, the petitioners were identified as ‘wrongful gainers’ and the charges levelled against the petitioners were found proved during the departmental enquiry and thus, the authorities were justified in imposing punishment of removal from service to the petitioners. 29. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per Rule 27 (c) of CRPF Rules 1955 and Standing Order 20/2011, there was no need to supply such documents with the memorandum when the documents which were to be relied upon in support of the charge could have been put in evidence as exhibits during the enquiry and the accused would thereafter be called upon to make their defence after inspecting such exhibits and accordingly all such documents were handed over to the petitioners by the enquiry officer during enquiry along with sufficient time for preparing their defence. The CBI enquiry report was also handed over to the petitioners vide letter dated 13.09.2010 to enable them to prepare their representation on the report of the enquiry officer, if the CBI report was significant or relevant to the charges levelled against them, but they did not submit any new facts. 30. Learned counsel for the respondents averred that after concluding the CBI enquiry, a Board of Officers was detailed by IGP, Bihar Sector, CRPF to check the service books etc. 30. Learned counsel for the respondents averred that after concluding the CBI enquiry, a Board of Officers was detailed by IGP, Bihar Sector, CRPF to check the service books etc. of the recruitment to find out ‘wrongful gainers’ and thereafter the said Board investigated the matter and submitted a report dated 07.04.2005 in which the petitioners were found ‘wrongful gainers’ and in those circumstances, the Directorate General, CRPF, New Delhi vide letter dated 08.08.2005 directed that wrongful gainers may not be issued offer of appointment. Thereafter all the writ petitions, MJC etc. were filed and decided as per the directions of the High Court and the petitioners were asked to join vide letter dated 31.1.2009 and 03.12.2008 and they joined on 25.02.2009 and 27.12.2008 respectively and accordingly appointment letter was issued to them vide order dated 09.06.2009 and 22.01.2009. Hence he submitted that all the directions of the Hon’ble Court were also fully complied by the authorities, whose orders and directions were fully in accordance with the prescribed procedures. 31. Learned counsel for the respondents also adopted all the other arguments raised on behalf of the respondents of the first writ petition bearing CWJC No.20366 of 2011 against the claim of the petitioners of that writ petition. 32. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record as well as the specific provisions of law in that regard, the dispute between the parties lie within a very short compass. The petitioners in the aforesaid two writ petitions can be divided into three groups as per the respective charges levelled against them. 33. So far the first group is concerned, it consisted of petitioners nos.1 and 2 of CWJC no.20366 of 2011 who belonged to the general category. The allegation is that they had been allotted aggregate of 60 marks after rendering 01 un-entitled mark to their credit to which they were not entitled as had been found in the CBI enquiry report as well as in the enquiry report submitted in the departmental proceeding upon which the punishments were given. However, it is not in dispute that the cut off marks for appointment of general category candidates fixed by the authorities in the said selection process of 2002-03 for constable (GD) in the CRPF was 59 and no illegality has been found by any of the authorities in fixing the said cut off marks. However, it is not in dispute that the cut off marks for appointment of general category candidates fixed by the authorities in the said selection process of 2002-03 for constable (GD) in the CRPF was 59 and no illegality has been found by any of the authorities in fixing the said cut off marks. In the said circumstances, the petitioners, even according to the claim of the authorities, had rightfully obtained 59 marks and hence they had obtained the minimum qualifying marks which rendered them fully entitled to be appointed on their respective posts. 34. However the claim of the respondents is that there may be several other candidates obtaining 59 marks who would have been above the petitioners in the merit list had the petitioners been allotted their due marks, i.e. 59, but neither any such merit list has been produced by the respondents, nor they have named even a single candidate having 59 marks who could have been benefited. There is no material nor there is any occasion for this Court to presume that any such candidate existed in the merit list, especially when the petitioners have specifically denied the aforesaid claim of the respondents. Moreover, in any view of the matter, a cut off mark is fixed only on the basis of seats available and from the respective claims of the parties, it is quite apparent that the vacancies in the general category would be filled up if 59 marks was fixed as cut off marks and that consideration definitely included petitioner nos. 1 and 2 of the first writ petition also and hence taking the worst point of view as raised by the respondents there was no occasion for removal of the aforesaid petitioners from service. 35. So far the second group is concerned, it consisted of petitioner no.3 of CWJC No.20366 of 2011 who belonged to the OBC category. The allegation is that he had been allotted aggregate of 47 marks after rendering 01 un-entitled mark to his credit to which he was not entitled as had been found in the CBI enquiry report as well as the enquiry report submitted in the departmental proceeding upon which the punishment was given. The allegation is that he had been allotted aggregate of 47 marks after rendering 01 un-entitled mark to his credit to which he was not entitled as had been found in the CBI enquiry report as well as the enquiry report submitted in the departmental proceeding upon which the punishment was given. However, it is not in dispute that the cut off marks for appointment of OBC category candidate fixed by the authorities in the said selection process of 2002-03 for constable (GD) in the CRPF was 46 and no illegality has been found by any of the authorities in fixing the said cut off marks. In the said circumstances, the petitioner, even according to the claim of the authorities, had rightfully obtained 46 marks and hence he had obtained the minimum qualifying marks which rendered him fully entitled to be appointed on his post. 36. However, the claim of the respondents is that there may be several other candidates obtaining 46 marks, who would have been above the petitioner in the merit list had the petitioner been allotted his due marks, i.e. 46, but neither any such merit list has been produced by the respondents, nor they have named even a single candidate having 46 marks who could have been benefited. There is no material nor there is any occasion for this Court to presume that any such candidate existed in the merit list, especially when the petitioner no.3 has specifically denied the aforesaid claim of the respondents. Moreover, in any view of the matter, a cut off mark is fixed only on the basis of seats available and from the respective claims of the parties, it is quite apparent that the vacancies in the OBC category would be filled up if 46 marks was fixed as cut off marks and that consideration definitely included petitioner no. 3 of the first writ petition also and hence taking the worst point of view as raised by the respondents there was no occasion for removal of the aforesaid petitioner from service. 37. So far the third group is concerned, it consisted of all the three petitioners of second writ petition bearing CWJC No.21162 of 2011 who belonged to OBC category. The allegation is that they had admittedly secured 45.5 marks in aggregate, whereas cut off marks for qualifying in the OBC category was 46. 37. So far the third group is concerned, it consisted of all the three petitioners of second writ petition bearing CWJC No.21162 of 2011 who belonged to OBC category. The allegation is that they had admittedly secured 45.5 marks in aggregate, whereas cut off marks for qualifying in the OBC category was 46. However by rounding off the aforesaid 45.5 aggregate marks obtained by the petitioners it was made 46 by the Recruitment Board, where after these petitioners were held to be eligible for appointment. The respondents have claimed that neither there was any such procedure prescribed in law, nor there was any direction from the higher authorities for rounding off the marks and hence the said act of the Recruitment Board was against the prescribed norms which illegally enabled the petitioners to secure their selection, but it was subsequently detected by another Board of Officers and the impugned action was taken. No doubt, the cut off marks of such appointment of OBC candidate was 46 aggregate marks, but from the arguments of the parties and the materials on record, it is apparent that there was no other candidate obtaining 46 aggregate marks who was not appointed and hence the next candidates obtaining highest marks were the petitioners who had admittedly and rightfully obtained 45.5 aggregate marks and in addition to that there were still vacancies after including all the candidates obtaining 46 marks. In the said circumstances, rounding off 45.5 aggregate marks as 46 marks was necessary for filling up the vacancies. In any view of the matter, such rounding off the marks cannot be held to be illegal as no provision of law or any direction of the higher authorities has been produced by the respondents to show that such rounding off was barred or deprecated. 38. Furthermore, in such circumstances and in the absence of any provision prohibiting the same usually such rounding off is done to fill up the vacancies. The respondents have also miserably failed to produce any document/list to show that any other candidate who was above those petitioners in the merit list had suffered due to their selection, whereas the petitioners had categorically denied such bald statements of the respondents and hence taking the worst point of view as raised by the respondents there was no occasion for removal of the aforesaid petitioners from service. 39. 39. It cannot be disputed that selection process is an administrative action and procedural fairness is the main requirement for the same and the selection committee cannot be an exception to this principle and it has to take a decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the selection committee had failed to adopt a fair procedure or had been guided by any extraneous or irrelevant consideration in selecting the candidates, including the petitioners. The respondents have also failed to show that the selection was arbitrary or whimsical or the selection committee did not act fairly by appointing the petitioners. It has to be noted that the selection committee consists of experts in the subject of selection and they have to consider all the pros and cons of the selection and if the selection is not contrary to any specific provision of law or any specific direction of the higher authorities, the officers above the selection committee or the officers holding any enquiry must be very careful and slow in interfering with the opinion of the selection committee. This view has been taken by the Apex court in case of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro sciences (Supra). 40. So far the charges levelled against all the petitioners of the instant two writ petitions are concerned, a bare perusal of the article of charges showed that it was absolutely vague and indefinite so far the act of the petitioners in the illegalities as alleged against them was concerned. Mere statement that they were ‘wrongful gainers’ cannot be legally construed as a definite charge. The Rule with respect to supplying article of charges embodied a principle which is one of the basic concepts of a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the proceedee for defending himself and if such proceedee is not given a clear and definite allegation on which the charges levelled against him were founded, the proceedee would not be in a position to file his defence on the facts and circumstances that may be in contemplation of the authorities to be established against him. This view also finds support from a decision of the Apex Court in case of Surath Chandra Chakravarty (supra). 41. This view also finds support from a decision of the Apex Court in case of Surath Chandra Chakravarty (supra). 41. So far the question of misconduct raised by the respondents is concerned, the term is defined and explained by the Apex court in case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra), paragraphs 18 and 19 whereof reads as follows:- “18. The expression “misconduct” has to be understood as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, unlawful behaviour, willful in character. It may be synonymous as misdemeanour in propriety and mismanagement. In a particular case, negligence or carelessness may also be a misconduct for example, when a watchman leaves his duty and goes to watch cinema, though there may be no theft or loss to the institution but leaving the place of duty itself amounts to misconduct. It may be more serious in case of disciplinary forces. 19. Further, the expression “misconduct” has to be construed and understood in reference to the subject-matter and context wherein the term occurs taking into consideration the scope and object of the statute which is being construed. Misconduct is to be measured in the terms of the nature of misconduct and it should be viewed with the consequences of misconduct as to whether it has been detrimental to the public interest.” 42. As per the aforesaid proposition of law it cannot be left to the vagaries of the authorities to say ex post facto that some acts of omission or commission, nowhere found to be enumerated or explained in the order of the authorities or the article of charges, is nonetheless a misconduct although not strictly falling within the ambit of any rule of law or direction of the higher authorities and on its basis imposing a penalty. Furthermore, it cannot be left open to the authorities to fish out some conduct as misconduct and punish the employees even though the alleged misconduct would not be comprehended in any of the misconduct enumerated in any provision or the laid down proposition of law. In this regard, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in case of Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel (supra). 43. In this regard, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in case of Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel (supra). 43. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the specific provisions of law discussed above, neither there is any allegation that the petitioners had committed illegality in obtaining higher marks, nor the respondents-authorities had raised and supported such allegation before this court. The various reports also have not found the petitioners guilty of such illegality. Thus, none of the petitioners of the instant two writ petitions can be legally held to be guilty of getting their marks raised or rounded off through any illegal means. Thus, the marks given to the petitioners which were aggregate of marks of different stages by the authorities concerned were given according to the principles of law and furthermore the fixation of cut off marks and selection of the petitioners cannot be also held to be illegal or against any provision of law or any direction in that regard by the higher authorities. In these circumstances, the petitioners were definitely not ‘wrongful gainers’, rather their selection and appointments were fully legal and justified. The enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority had miserably failed to consider the above mentioned aspects of the matter and had submitted the enquiry report and passed the order of dismissal merely on the assumption that the petitioners were the wrongful gainers which in the facts and circumstances of the case they were not. The impugned orders of the appellate and the revisional authorities are replica of the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority without considering the specific points raised by the petitioners in those appeals and revisions and without appreciating the specific provisions of law in that regard. 44. Accordingly, all the aforesaid orders of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority impugned in both the instant writ petitions are hereby quashed and the selection and appointment of the petitioners in the year 2002-03 is held to be valid, legal and proper. The respondents-authorities are also directed to immediately appoint the petitioners on their respective posts giving all the benefit of service to which they are entitled, both financial and promotional/incremental etc., considering them to be in continuous service on the posts of constables (GD) in the CRPF since the date of their initial appointments in the year 2003. 45. The respondents-authorities are also directed to immediately appoint the petitioners on their respective posts giving all the benefit of service to which they are entitled, both financial and promotional/incremental etc., considering them to be in continuous service on the posts of constables (GD) in the CRPF since the date of their initial appointments in the year 2003. 45. With the aforesaid observations/directions, both the aforesaid writ petitions are allowed.