1. In these writ appeals, the appellants have challenged the legality and correctness of the common order dated 23.6.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P. Nos.27374/2013 and 39603/2012 by which the writ petition filed in W.P. No.27374/2013 by respondent No.1 was allowed quashing the order dated 13.6.2013 passed by the enquiring authority, and ordering reinstatement of respondent No.1 into service with all consequential benefits with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. In W.P. No.39603/2012, the learned Single Judge has also quashed the transfer order dated 14.9.2012 wherein respondent No.1 was transferred from Bangalore to Koraput Division of the appellant employer ('HAL' for short).

2. Heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and also the arguments of respondent No.1, who is party-in-person.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, during the course of his arguments, made the submission that respondent No.1 was working as a Chief Manager (MS&T) at appellant company and in view of certain act of misconduct alleged to have been committed by respondent No.1, charge sheet dated 12.4.2012 (Annexure-N) was issued to him, for which, respondent No.1 submitted reply dated 15.5.2012 (Annexure-N1) denying all the allegations. The competent disciplinary authority constituted one-man committee to enquire into the charges levelled against respondent No.1, and respondent No.1 had participated in the proceedings before the enquiring authority. Though opportunity was provided to respondent No.1 to take assistance of the fellow employees to assist him during the enquiry, he refused to take the assistance.

4. The learned Senior Counsel in his further arguments made the submission that the enquiry officer submitted report dated 15.1.2013 holding that charges 'A' and 'C' were proved and the charge at 'B' was not proved. The charges held to have been proved were as under:

"(A) The 'Employment Questionnaire', (at serial no. 9) was very specific with regard to availing VRS from any PSU/Govt. If so, further details with regard to the date and amount received as ex-gratia with regard to the date and amount to serial no. 9 of 'Employment Questionnaire' you had stated "Not Applicable (serving in private company)" knowing fully well that you had taken VRS from Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and drawn VRS compensation, as admissible to you. You chose not to furnish/declare the information regarding previous service, when it was asked for. You have thereby willfully suppressed the material fact, regarding VRS in the 'Employment Questionnaire', at the time of interview, on 09.07.2007.

(C) You did not return the voluntary retirement benefits received from SAIL, despite having been advised by the MRO Division vide letter no. H/A/SM(HR)-MRO/95349/451/09 dt 23.01.2009. Further, in reply to another letter from SM(HR)-MRO dt 14.11.2009, reminding you to return the amount, it was informed by you that you are expecting certain clarification from IT Department. It is understood that the amount has not yet been returned by you to SAIL, even after a lapse of more than two years."

A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to respondent No.1 and he was asked to give reply to the enquiry report. Respondent No.1 gave reply by letter dated 7.2.2013 (Annexure-T2), which was communicated on 4.3.2013 (Annexure-T3). The disciplinary authority, namely the Managing Director of Helicopter Division, considering the reply as also the submission made by respondent No.1, passed an order of dismissal dated 18.3.3013 (Annexure-V). Respondent No.1 challenged the said order by filing a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.12405/2013 and the said writ petition was disposed of permitting respondent No.1 to file an appeal as per conduct, discipline and appeal rules of HAL. Being aggrieved by the order of the enquiring authority and challenging the order of dismissal as also see