The petitioners were working in different capacities in the Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.) at various stations by July, 1994. A startling development has taken place on 22.07.2004. An order purporting to transfer as many as 12 members of the C.R.P.F. including the petitioners, has emanated from the Office of the Director General of Police, C.R.P.F., New Delhi, respondent No.1 herein. Except petitioner Nos.3 to 7, rest of them were transferred to the Group Centre of C.R.P.F. at Hyderabad. Some of them joined at the places to which they were transferred. However, hardly within one month, it emerged that the order of transfer was a fake one. An enquiry was conducted immediately and it was found that three persons transferred under the said order have resorted to objectionable means and procured the same. While one of them, by name P.Prasad, was dismissed from service, other two i.e. Jaibir Singh and Mohd.Sabir, were permitted to take voluntary retirement.

2. In the year 2009, the petitioners were served with charge sheets alleging that they have committed acts of misconduct and misbehaviour as defined under Section 11 (1) of the C.R.P.F. Act, by colluding with one and other and brought into existence, a fake order of transfer. It was also alleged that they have adopted illegal methods by offering bribe or resorted to other malpractices or unfair means. A charge sheet was served against the petitioners and one Sri D.Hari Krishna.

3. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 28.01.2009 holding that charge Nos.1 and 2 were proved against Sri D.Hari Krishna, but are partially proved against the petitioners. The disciplinary authority, the Director Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, respondent No.4 herein, differed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioners. Straightaway, he issued a show cause notice to the petitioners, proposing punishment; duly enclosing the copies of enquiry report and disagreement report. The petitioners submitted their explanations, raising several objections. Respondent No.4 issued proceedings, dated 03.06.2009, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 passed an order, dated 26.09.2010, enhancing the punishment to the one of removal from service. The petitioners filed W.P.No.22911 of 2009 challenging the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 4. The writ petition was allowed and the proceedings were set aside mainly on the ground that respondent No.4 did not issue the show cause notice to the petitioners before he differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The matter was remanded to respondent No.4 for fresh consideration and disposal.

5. The petitioners were reinstated into service. Respondent No.4 addressed a letter, dated 14.05.2010, together with disagreement report, to the petitioners, giving them 15 days of time, to submit their defence. The petitioners submitted their explanation/defence on 27.05.2010. This time, respondent No.4 imposed the punishment of removal from service upon the petitioners by himself, through proceedings, dated 30.06.2010. Hence, this writ petition.

6. The petitioners have also filed an appeal against the order of dismissal even while approaching this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the appeal was dismissed. By filing a miscellaneous petition, the petitioners sought amendment of the prayer in the writ petition, to include the challenge to the order passed by the appellate authority also.

7. The petitioners contend that the incumbent holding the office of respondent No.4 was prejudiced against them. They submit that they are not at all responsible for the issuance or emergence of the order of transfer, dated 22.07.2004, and that the persons, who were found guilty in that connection, were eithergiven punishment or were permitted to take voluntary retirement. The petitioners contend