JUDGMENT :

Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J.

1. Un-successful respondents in Writ Petitions are the appellants in the present Writ Appeals.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the present Writ Appeals are as follows: The Cotton Corporation of India Limited issued a paper notification on 21.10.2014, inviting applications for the purpose of filling up the vacancies of Junior Cotton Purchasers. The writ petitioners applied for the said posts and they were appointed in the first half of the year 2015. The Cotton Corporation of India issued show cause notices, calling upon the writ petitioners to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated, while alleging that the writ petitioners got into employment by adopting fraudulent method.

3. In response to the said show cause notices, the writ petitioners submitted their explanations. Thereafter, the Cotton Corporation of India issued orders, terminating the services of the writ petitioners. Assailing the validity and legal sustainability of the said orders of termination, the respondents in these Writ Appeals, by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed the Writ Petitions. The learned Single Judge, by way of the orders impugned in these Writ Appeals, allowed the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents herein by setting aside the orders of termination. The said orders passed by the learned Single Judge are under challenge in these Writ Appeals preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

4. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the writ appellants and Sri R. Raghunandan, learned senior counsel representing Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent in W.A. No. 912 of 2017 and Sri M. Ramgopal Rao, learned counsel for the respondent in W.A. No. 241 of 2017, apart from perusing the material available before the Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri J. Sudheer, contends that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge are highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the well-settled principles of law. In elaboration, it is further argued by the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge grossly went wrong in directing to conduct enquiry and ought to have seen that in the absence of declaration of the probation of the writ petitioners, the question of holding regular enquiry does not arise and the finding of the learned Single Judge contra cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the writ appellants that in view of the fraud and misrepresentation resorted to by the writ petitioners even prior to entering into the service and having regard to Clause 14 of the recruitment notification, there is no requirement of holding regular enquiry. It is further contended that since the allegations pertain to the period anterior to the entry into service, regular enquiry need not be conducted. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned counsel for the writ appellants, places reliance on the following judgments:

(1) Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal and others (2013) 9 SCC 363 : 2013 (5) ALT 34.3 (DN SC).

(2) R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and others (2004) 5 SCC 105.

(3) Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another v. Girdharilal Yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325.

(4) A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu and others (2005) 7 SCC 177 : 2005 (6) ALT 76.2 (DN SC).

(5) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. Ram Raton Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437.

(6) R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police and others (2008) 1 SCC 660.

(7) State of Manipur and others v Y. Token Singh and others (2007) 5 SCC 65 : 2008 (4) ALT 4.1 (DN SC).

(8) Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others (2010) 13 SCC 216 : 2011 (3) ALT 19.1 (DN SC).

(9) Khub Ram v. Dalbir Singh and others (2015) 8 SCC 368 : 2015 (4) ALT 30.2 (DN SC).

(10) Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others 2016 (7) SCAL