JUDGMENT :

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General-II, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel, along with Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 in all the appeals.

2. Though the appeals arise out of separate orders passed by the learned single Judge in individual writ petitions, the substratum of the orders is one and the same. In the writ petitions, Charge Memos issued against the respective writ petitioners by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (for short ‘the Tribunal’) Hyderabad, after their retirement from service, were assailed. By the orders assailed, the learned single Judge had quashed the impugned Charge Memos and held that the writ petitioners would be entitled to all consequential pensionary and retirement benefits.

3. Since the issue involved in all these writ appeals is same, the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. W.A. No. 453 of 2021 arises out of a judgment and order dated 05.11.2019 in W.P. No. 16232 of 2019, W.A. No. 457 of 2021 arises out of a judgment and order dated 05.11.2019 in W.P. No. 16234 of 2019, W.A. No. 466 of 2021 arises out of a judgment and order dated 29.05.2020 in W.P. No. 3637 of 2020 and W.A. No. 473 of 2021 arises out of a judgment and order dated 24.01.2020 in W.P. No. 19385 of 2019.

5. Basic facts of each of the writ petitions, to the extent relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present appeals, are noted as under:

(i) The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 16232 of 2019 had retired from service as Excise Inspector on 28.02.2017. After his retirement, a Charge Memo dated 08.07.2019, which was assailed in the writ petition, was issued by the Tribunal in Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 726 of 2013, alleging that he had colluded with a benami group of K. Krishna Murthy at Kuppam and allowed irregularities that were committed in respect of 10 wine shops in violation of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Excise Act’) and Andhra Pradesh Excise Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Excise Rules’) and thereby, abused his official position. The said allegations relate to the events that took place between the years 2010 and 2012.

(ii) The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 16234 of 2019 had retired from service as Excise Inspector on 31.07.2017. He was also issued a Charge Memo dated 22.03.2019 by the Tribunal in Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 560 of 2013 in respect of certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by him during the year 2011. The allegations levelled in the Charge Memo are to the effect that he had dishonestly allowed benami operations in respect of certain wine shops in Kodur and Chitvel liquor groups in violation of the Excise Rules.

(iii) The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 3637 of 2020 had retired from service as Joint Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise on 28.02.2017. The Tribunal issued Charge Memo dated 07.02.2018 in Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 203 of 2013, alleging that he, actuated by corrupt motive and in connivance with a leader of SVR liquor syndicate, had received bribes (mamools) and did not take action to control violations in respect of the affairs of wine shops and, thereby, abused his official position. The said allegations relate to the events occurred between the years 2010 and 2012.

(iv) The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 19385 of 2019 had retired from service as Prohibition & Excise Inspector on 31.07.2018. He had assailed the Charge Memo dated 30.11.2018 issued by the Tribunal in Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 554 of 2013, alleging that he used to collect mamools from wine syndicates and had allowed the licence holders to sell the liquor above MRP rates and to run wine shops beyond the prescribed timings and had also allowed sale of loose liquor for consumption without licence/permission. The allegations levelled in the said C