JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-As the controversies in these appeals are based on identical premises, they are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.

2. Background facts leading to these appeals are as follows:

The respondent in each case was working as a conductor in the appellant - Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the employer ). Departmental proceedings were initiated against each one of them on the ground of misconduct due to unauthorized long absence from duty; negligence of duties and lack of interest in the employer s work. The terms and conditions of appointment and service were governed by the applicable service regulations i.e. Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 (in short the Regulations ). According to the employer the unauthorized absence was indicative of negligence, and lack of interest in employer s work amounted to misconduct. Reference was made to Para 4(ii) and 19(h) of the Standing Orders issued under Para 15(1) of the Regulations. After finding the concerned employees guilty and being of the view that removal from service was the proper punishment, the Disciplinary Authorit