A. J. SADASHIVA, J.

( 1 ) THOUGH the petitions are listed for preliminary hearing, since the first respondent had entered caveat, the petitions are taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties.

( 2 ) THESE two writ petitions are by the same petitioner against two orders passed by the second respondent in Reference No. 22/89, In W. P. No. 17495/93, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 18-8-1992 passed by the second respondent, answering the preliminary issue against the petitioner, and, the order dated 5-3-1993 directing the petitioner to pay the first respondent 50% of gross salary with effect from 1-10-1992 as an interim-relief, is sought to be quashed in W. P. No. 17496/93.

( 3 ) SRI B. C. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the validity of the order impugned in W. P. No. 17496/93 is dependent upon the validity of the order impugned in W. P. No. 17495/93 by which the domestic enquiry has been set aside. Accordingly W. P. No. 17495/93 is taken up for consideration first.

( 4 ) SRI V. Gopala Gowda, learned counsel for the first defendant has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document