K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—The appeals arise from the common judgment of a learned Single Judge in analogous writ petitions. The petitioners were teachers appointed in the early 1980s whose appointments were subject of an inquiry, conducted by the CBI, on directions of this Court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). A report was submitted by the CBI and no action was taken. Again, a PIL was filed which led to further action against the teachers who were alleged to have been appointed illegally; in the CBI report. The various punishments imposed were set aside, in some of the cases, finding the departmental inquiry initiated against each of them to be improper. By reason of the liberty left by this Court to proceed afresh, the Department proceeded de novo against the said teachers. Many of them had retired, against whom, after inquiry, punishment was imposed withdrawing their pension in toto. Those who were in employment at the time of the de novo inquiry were terminated from service. Both these categories of persons along with others who were issued with show-cause notices approached this Court with a number of writ petitions, all of which were rejected by the judgment impugned in the appeals.

2. The learned Single Judge had at the outset categorized the writ petitions into three; (i) those whose pensions were withdrawn in entirety, having retired from service, (ii) those who were terminated from service and (iii) the teachers who were issued with show-cause notices. The common thread in the proceedings against all the petitioners, some of whom are the appellants herein, was the CBI inquiry. The impugned judgment which relied on the CBI inquiry report; which supported the allegations raised of illegal appointments, to find the penalty imposed to be perfectly in order, especially when the illegal appointments were held to have interfered with and violated the rule of equality, a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointments were found to be made in collusion, based on extraneous considerations, without proper advertisements, non-compliance of roster points, no transparent selection process having been carried out; all very compelling factors vitiating the very appointments, was the finding. The appointments thus made, by reason of the fraud employed, make such appointments void ab initio according to the writ court.

3. Sri Purushottam Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would argue that the findings in the impugned judgment are erroneous, misdirected and fail to reckon the principles and procedures which validate a proper departmental inquiry. The mere reliance on the CBI report which was kept in the back-burner for a number of years and which did not lead to registration of any FIRs was completely wrong. The inquiry initiated, after retirement did not follow the rules of procedure and hence the very initiation was flawed. After retirement there is no employer employee relationship subsisting. There was absolutely no evidence led at the inquiry and even the report was not marked in the inquiry as a document.

4. The CBI report having not been marked in the inquiry, the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the submissions made before Court on behalf of the CBI, by their Counsel was not in order. None of the legal contentions raised against the inquiry conducted and the punishment imposed were looked into by the learned Single Judge. Comparing the above case to other cases, where illegal appointments were made, to which interference was caused by this Court, affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; was irregular since the facts were different and distinct. The allegations in the inquiry report are demonstrated, by the documents on record, to be false. The appellants are entitled to seek for resumption of their pension with arrears paid and those who were terminated, to be reinstated with all attendant benefits. The learned counsel meticulously took us th