Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) These are eight special appeals which raise common questions and it is convenient to decide them by a common judgement.
(2.) The respondents were appointed as loco cleaners in the Northern Railway between 1959 and 1960. According to the conditions of service such employees were required to be medically examined at the time of appointment and every three years thereafter. Near about the expiry of three years' period they were medically examined in July,1963 and they were declared fit in accordance with the standard prescribed for such employees who had completed three years' service. Later on it appears that the appointing authorities felt that the respondents had actually failed at the medical examination undergone by them at the time of their original appointment. They considered that the case was covered by the Railway Board's letter dated 5.5.1952 which proved:- "Employees who were not examined medically at the time of appointment, for any reason, should not be medically examined, with relaxation that standards at re-examination during the service may be applied to them if they had put in six years or more of continuous service on the railway." The case taken up by the railway authorities in the counter affidavit was that the respondents had appeared at the medical examination prior to their appointment. They had failed in that examination but some how they manipulated to get entries in their service records of medical fitness and on that basis obtained appointment letters. The authorities treated the respondents as have really not appeared at the medical examination and applying to the Railway Board's directive contained in letter dated 5.5.1952 directed the respondent to appear at the medical examination again. This medical examination was conducted by the Divisional Medical Officer, Allahabad, on or about 28th November, 1963. he examined them according to the standard prescribed for candidates for appointment. Applying that standard, the respondents were declared medically unfit. On the basis of this medical examination the authorities served upon the respondents a notice requiring them to show cause why they should not be discharged from service on the ground that they had been declared medically unfit. The respondents filed an explanation, but that was not considered satisfactory. The Divisional Personnel Officer ultimately passed an order on 14th February,1964 discharging the respondents from service on the ground of medical unfitness.
(3.) The respondents challenged this order by way of writ petitions. A learned single Judge held that the discharge from service on the ground of medical fitness per se amounted to punishment within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Since the order was passed in violation of Article 311 (2), it was void.;