JUDGMENT :

TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J.

1. Eleven persons preferred separate original applications challenging the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed in the same. As identical points of fact and law were involved in the said original applications, the same were heard analogously. The original application (in short, OA) being OA 1431 of 2010 preferred by Jaydev Prasad Mondal was heard as the leading case and all the OAs were dismissed by an order dated 26^th September, 2022. Challenging the said order eleven separate writ petitions have been preferred and the above eight writ petitions have been heard analogously.

2. This case has a chequered history. The writ petitioners were initially engaged as daily rated casual labour on 27.02.1989 in the unit of PW1 Manoharpur but after 47 days, their services were terminated due to expiry of sanction on 14.04.1989. They were again appointed as fresh appointees on 25.05.1989 and terminated on 23.07.1990 alleging that they had been obtained appointment on the basis of forged and fake certificates. Challenging the said orders of termination, the petitioners along with others raised an industrial dispute which was referred before the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the CGIT) and was registered as reference case no.87 of 1991. Upon contested hearing, an award was delivered on 18^th December, 1992 directing the management to reinstate the petitioners with effect from their respective dates of termination and to pay them full back wages. The said order was duly complied with by the Railways. Surprisingly thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioners vide charge-sheet dated 11^th August, 1994. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioners were again dismissed by respective orders dated 30^th December, 2002. The said order passed by the disciplinary authority (in short DA) was challenged by the petitioners before the learned Tribunal and by a composite order dated 24^th January, 2003, the dismissal orders were quashed and the DA was directed to consider the matter afresh on the basis of the materials already on record and to pass a reasoned order. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred writ petitions but the same were not entertained. The DA thereafter passed an order on 23^rd July, 2007 imposing a punishment from dismissal of service. Aggrieved by the said order statutory appeals were preferred but the same were also dismissed by an order dated 2^nd February, 2010. Challenging the said orders the respective writ petitioners preferred separate original applications before the learned Tribunal. The orders passed in the same have been impugned by filing the present writ petitions.

3. Ms. Saha, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were terminated by an order dated 21^st July, 1990 on the basis of a vigilance report alleging that they had been appointed on 25.05.89 on the basis of fake certificates. Upon contested hearing, the CGIT set aside and quashed the orders of termination. The respondents thereafter reinstated the petitioners with back wages. In view thereof, the respondents had no jurisdiction to initiate a fresh proceeding vide charge sheet date 11.08.1994 on the basis of the self-same allegation/charge.

4. She argues that the appointment of the petitioners on 25.05.1989 was a fresh recruitment from open market. Such appointment was not based upon any certification of prior engagement. Such fresh recruitment was illegally construed to be a re-engagement. The factum of appointment of the petitioners in the year 1989 in the unit of PW-1 Manoharpur was admitted by the prosecution witness, namely, Rama Murthy. Mr. D.K. Ghosh, who worked in PW-1(C)/BNDM, issued certificates pertaining to the petitioners’ earlier engagement but he was not examined by the prosecution and that as such the finding that the petitioners managed forged and fake certificate for getting