( 1 ) THE petitioners in these five writ petitions are the employees of the A. P. State electricity Board. In these writ petitions, they have assailed the validity of the charge-sheets issued to them. Since the facts pleaded in all these writ petitions are substantially similar and the questions which fall for consideration are common, the writ petitions were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 1897 of 1998 joined the service of the Board as Watchman on 27-6-1986; he was promoted as Helper on 27-10-1988 and he was further promoted as Assistant Lineman on 16-7-1992. The petitioner in W. P. No. 1929 of 1998 joined the service of the Board as Helper on 1-7-1972; he was promoted as Assistant Lineman on 8-7-1982 and subsequently he was promoted as Lineman on 8-7-1992. The petitioner in W. P. No. 1964 of 1998 joined the service of the Board as Helper w. e. f. 31-7-1989 and presently he is serving as Junior Lineman. The petitioner in W. P. No. 1986 of 1998 joined the service of the Board as Helper on 19-4-1965 and presently he is serving in the Blue Print Section. The petitioner in W. P. No. 2021 of 1998 joined the service of the Board on NMR basis on 28-10-1969 and at present he is serving as assistant Lineman.

( 3 ) EACH of the petitioners was served with the charge-sheet impugned in each of the writ petitions alleging that when they joined the service of the board they produced bogus educational qualification certificates and calling upon the petitioners to file their written statements, if any, within the stipulated time. At this stage, the writ petitions are filed praying for quashing the chargesheets

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners joined the service between 1965 and 1986 and if the respondents are permitted to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners at this distance of time, that will be totally viblative of principles of natural justice, and dilute the defence of the petitioners in proving that the school certificates produced by them are genuine and, therefore, the delay itself in initiating the disciplinary proceedings is fatal vitiating the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioners have also contended that under the A. P. S. E. B. Conduct Regulations and Discipline and Appeal Regulations, the concerned Divisional Engineer is the Disciplinary authority and since the Board itself has initiated the disciplinary proceedings, the right of appeal available to the petitioners, would be lost. Though the aforementioned two contentions are raised in the writ petitions, at the time of hearing Sri Venkataramana, learned Counsel for the petitioners gave up the second contention.

( 5 ) IN response to Rule Nisi, the respondents have filed counter in each of the writ petitions. In the counter-affidavits it is pointed out that only on 25-11-1995 a complaint was received alleging that the petitioners secured the job in the Board by producing bogus educational certificates and in pursuance of that complaint the Board directed the Vigilance Inspector of the respondent Board at Tirupati to enquire into the allegations and the Vigilance Inspector after necessary enquiry and investigation into the allegations found that the educational certificates produced by the petitioners at the time of joining the service are bogus and in that view of the matter the Board thought it necessary to proceed against the petitioners departmentally under the Conduct and appeal Regulations. In each of the countera-affidavits, the respondents have set out the findings recorded in the preliminary enquiry conducted by the vigilance Inspector. I donot find it necessary to refer to those findings recorded in the preliminary enquiry for the purpose of deciding these writ petitions.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners would reiterate and highlight the same contention taken in the writ petitions. The learned