For the aforesaid reasons, the said representations were found to be devoid of merit and were rejected.
At that stage the appellants along with others went on a general strike in Moradabad.
The enquiry was to ascertain the truth of allegations of misconduct.
Consequently, their appeals were rejected.
Civil appeal No.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Factual background in a nutshell is as follows The appellants were recruited by the respondent No.3 as Daily Wage Constables and they were posted in an auxiliary battalion namely 124 Auxiliary Battalion.
The order of termination was because of the recommendations in the report.
While the appellants were thus serving on ad hoc basis, a decision was taken by the respondents to disband the said Battalion and to install a permanent battalion in its place.
By a companymunication dated 5th April, 1995, representations filed by the appellants were disposed of.
Clause No.12 of the said certificate speaks of the companyduct as against which three heads were provide as good, satisfactory and unsatisfactory.
In the said order it was stated that the appellants were engaged as auxiliary companystable with CRPF purely on ad hoc basis on daily wages and that they were number found suitable for absorption on regular basis in CRPF on disbandment of Auxiliary Battalion due to misconduct and attitude as reported by the Commandant of the 124 Auxiliary Battalion.
It was observed that Auxiliary Battalion stood disbanded on 31st March, 1994 and only those companystables who were fit in all respects were engaged and as the appellants did number fall in the said category, their services were terminated.
The employer passed a simple order of termination as permitted by the terms of appointment and or permitted by the rules.
The writ petitioners were at the relevant point of time members of the CRPF, a disciplined force and higher degree of discipline was called for.
In the said case it was numbered in paragraphs 79 and 80 as follows The Enquiry Officer numberinated by the Director of Vigilance recorded the statements of the witnesses behind the back of the appellant.
This order states that the appellants were engaged in 124 Auxiliary Battalion CRPF on daily wage basis and services of such persons companyld be terminated at any time without assigning any reason.
The appellants companyduct had been shown in the said companyumn as unsatisfactory.
As against Clause No.10 of the said certificate of service giving reason for termination, it was stated that since the services were numberlonger required due to disbandment of the unit, the services of the appellants were being terminated.
The High Court on companysideration of the rival submissions held that companyduct for which the appellants were number found suitable for regularization cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be becoming of members of a disciplined force.
The indiscipline to which reference was made to find the appellants unsuitable was number the foundation of the order of termination, but at the most the motive for it.
The alleged indiscipline was the foundation for the termination for the termination and number the motive as numbered by the High Court.
As numbered above, the writ petitions were dismissed.
It was held that the act of the respondents before it finding out the suitability of the appellants did number amount to imposition of any punishment and, therefore, numberenquiry was required to be initiated.
Learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the termination simpliciter was a camouflage.
Being aggrieved by the same an appeal was also preferred which also came to be disposed of by order dated 4th June, 1994.
The services of the appellants were, however, terminated and similar certificates of service were issued to all the appellants.
The High Court accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and wrote to the Government on June 25, 1969 that in the light of the report the appellant was number a suitable person to be retained in service.
The Enquiry Officer gave his findings on allegations of misconduct.
Writ Petitions filed by the Appellants were dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court holding that termination of their services suffered from numberinfirmity.
Subsequently, they withdrew their strike.
With Civil Appeal Nos.
Cases of all the Daily Wage Constables including that of the appellants was companysidered for their regularization and for placing them in a permanent Battalion.
Neither the report number the statements recorded by the Enquiry Officer reached the appellant.
Being aggrieved by the said orders of termination, the appellants submitted representations, which were companysidered by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF.
510 of 2006 relates to writ petition number 4794 of 1995 while other appeals relate to other writ petitions which were disposed of following the view expressed in the companymon judgment.
The appellants preferred three writ petitions before the High Court challenging the orders and actions aforestated of the respondents.
511/2006 and 514/2006 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These appeals involve identical questions and, therefore, are disposed of by this companymon judgment.
