1. Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation.

2. In these two writ petitions, the contention of the petitioners is that a shockingly disproportionate punishment was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority in relation to a trivial misconduct alleged. The petitioners submit that they do not want to go into the controversial and disputed facts and ask this Court to dispose of the writ petitions considering the sole issue of proportionality of the punishment. Therefore, the question arises for determination is whether this Court can entertain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and pass appropriate orders notwithstanding the exhaustion of alternative remedies available to the petitioners. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation did not file any counters in these writ petitions in view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioners do not insist upon examining the disputed questions of fact. Therefore, these two writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.

3. Briefly stat