Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. At the relevant date i.e. 15.3.1994 petitioners were serving as Constable with the Government Railway Police and were assigned the duty to escort 302 Down Gorakhpur Hawrah Express. They have filed this writ petition questioning the order dated 18.7.2003, Annexure-14 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Jamalpur removing them from service. They have also challenged the order dated 2.9.2004, 15.3.2007 passed by the D.I.G., Railways and Director General-cum-Inspector General, Bihar, Patna, Annexure- 15, 16 respectively dismissing their appeal, memorial filed against the removal order. Before removal of the petitioners, they were served with the memo of charge under Memo No. 17 dated 20th February, 2000, Annexure-4, wherefrom it appears that two separate departmental proceeding no. 85, 86 of 1999 was initiated against the petitioners. Perusal of memo of charge dated 20th February, 2000 indicates that petitioners along with two others while escorting 302 Down Gorakhpur Howrah Express on 15.3.1994 searched Sanjay Kumar Burman, his co-passenger traveling from Chapra in possession of 12 Kg. Silver and asked them to pay Rs. 20,000/-. On refusal of the two allegationist to pay the amount, the allegationist were detained by the members of the escort party at Chitranjan Railway Station and taken to the police station. While detaining the allegationist at the Railway Station, Rs. 450/- was forcibly taken out from the pocket of one of the allegationist and they were handed over to the Officer incharge, Mihijam Police Station. Further charge levelled against the petitioners is that on the statement of the allegationist, Madhupur Rail P.S.Case No. 29 of 1994 was registered on 24.3.1994 for the offence under Section 384 of the Penal Code which was investigated by the Inspector of Police, Jhajha Rail P.S. Madan Mohan Pandey and after investigation allegations levelled against petitioners and the Officer incharge, Mihijam P.S., Sub-Inspector Balram Prasad found true and Charge Sheet no. 11/97 dated 24.8.1997 was submitted. Perusal of the charge-sheet further indicates that in support of the charges the authorities desired to rely on the First Information Report lodged in connection with Madhupur Rail P.S.Case No. 29 of 1994, Supervision Note Report No. 2 and Memo No. 618, 646, 658 dated 4.6.1998, 14.7.1997, 19.7.1997 together with the brief of the case. Besides the documentary evidence the authorities also desired to rely on the statement of Sanjay Kumar Burman, his co-passenger Raj Kumar Sah, Inspector, Govt. Railway P.S. Jhajha Madan Mohan Pandey and the Crime Reader. Having received the memo of charge the two petitioners submitted their separate written defence. Written defence of Petitioner No. 1 is dated 6.3.2000 and is contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Perusal of the written defence indicates that petitioner no. 1 denied the allegations as false and imaginary and claimed that he is not at all aware about the occurrence as to who forcibly extorted amount from the victims. The Enquiry Officer considered the written defence of the petitioners and proceeded with the enquiry in which he examined documentary evidence referred to in the charge-sheet as also two witnesses out of the three named in the charge-sheet, namely, Madan Mohan Pandey, Inspector, Govt. Railway P.S., who recorded the fardbeyan of Madhupur P.S.Case No. 29 of 1994 as also the Crime Reader, named in the charge-sheet. Opportunity was given to the petitioners to cross-examine Madan Mohan Pandey but petitioners did not choose to cross-examine Madan Mohan Pandey. The allegationist Sanjay Kumar Burman and his co-passenger could not be examined by the Enquiry Officer inspite of repeated summons to them as they were not coming for their examination. For failure of the authorities to examine the allegationist Sanjay Kumar Burman and his co-passenger, the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioners o