( 1 ) THE petitioners herein, questioning the legality and validity of the office order dated 4th December, 2002 bearing No. D. V-2/2002-EC. II on the file of the second respondent vide Annexure-D, have presented the instant writ petitions. Further, the petitioners have sought for a direction, directing the respondents to continue the services of the petitioners in the post held by them with all other consequential benefits and on par with other selected candidates in respondents' force.

( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioners in the instant writ petitions is that, in pursuance of the notification issued by the second respondent, which was published in the newspaper in the month of august-September 2002, inviting eligible candidates for selection and appointment to various posts including the post of "safai Karmachari" and further notifying that all the eligible candidates desirous of joining the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), should attend for a personal test and interview including the medical test which will commence from 27th September, 2002 onwards, the petitioners herein, having requisite qualification and the eligibility, applied for the post of "safai karmachari". After verifying the educational qualification of the petitioners, medical fitness and physical test, the petitioners herein have been selected and accordingly, the appointment orders were also issued and the same have been communicated to the petitioners vide annexures-A1, A2 and A3 respectively on 11th October, 2002 bearing no. R-II-2/2002-EC-V (FOLL ). After receipt of the appointment orders, which were made subject to several conditions, the petitioners have joined the duty and were discharging their duty efficiently and to the satisfaction of the superior officers in the vacant post of "safai karmachari" in the 91 Battalion, 109 Battalion and 109 Battalion respectively along with 63 other similarly employed persons. Be that as it may.

( 3 ) TO the shock and surprise of the petitioners, they received the notice for termination of their services dated 7th November, 2002 vide annexures-B1, B2 and B3 respectively. After receipt of the said notices for termination of service, the petitioners have sent a reply through proper channel vide Annexures-C1, C2 and C3 respectively. Without considering their objections, without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to have their say in the matter and without conducting any enquiry whatsoever, unilaterally, the second respondent has taken a decision by passing the impugned office order dated 4th December, 2002 vide Annexure-D, terminating the services of the petitioners. Assailing the said decision taken by second respondent vide Annexure-D, and other consequential reliefs, as stated supra, the petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petitions.

( 4 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners is that, he impugned order passed by the authority is not a speaking order inasmuch as the same is passed without assigning any reasons whatsoever in terminating the services of the petitioners. The said action of second respondent is purely based on some extraneous considerations and purely on assumptions and presumptions. Therefore, there is no justification in the order passed by the authority, in terminating the services of the petitioners. He submitted that, it appears the second respondent has issued the termination notice purely on an alleged anonymous communication stated to have been sent by somebody. Before coming to the conclusion of terminating the services of the petitioners, the second respondent ought to have secured sufficient and convincing material for the charge and should have obtained the reply from these petitioners. Instead of that, the authority has passed the impugned order, without assigning any reasons, finding or discussion, unceremoniously removing the petitioners from the services of the respondents, which attac