( 1 ) THE appellants, while in employment of the respondent-Company, were charge-sheeted for committing theft and passing of watch parts in order to make wrongful gains. On the basis of the enquiry, the appellants were dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the orders of their dismissal, the appellants filed writ petitions in this Court alleging therein that they were not afforded a fair opportunity of defending themselves and that the admissions made by them while in police custody were wrongly made the basis to hold them guilty. It was further contended that on account of the pendency of criminal cases, they were handicapped in putting their defence effectively before the Inquiry Officer. The learned Single Judge vide the orders impugned in these appeals, came to the conclusion that the Inquiry Officer had not sifted the evidence properly to ascertain the liability in the context of the charge framed against the appellants. The veracity of their evidence was also held to be not properly considered. The Disciplinary Authority was stated to have been carried away by the findings of the Inquiry Officer without adverting to the question as to how it had arrived to th