Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioners in both these petitions is the same Educational Institution/Management. Respondent No. 3 in both these petition are two employees, who have been dismissed from service on the charges of misappropriation without conducting an enquiry. The petitioners are challenging the identical judgments of the School Tribunal both dated 5-12-2013 delivered in Appeal Nos. 12/2012 and 04/2012, respectively.

3. Since both the Employees stand on an identical set of facts and since the issue for determination is identical, I have taken up both these petitions together for hearing and disposal.

4. Shri Pradip R. Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioners/Management and Shri Shrikant S. Patil, learned Advocate for respondent No. 3/Employees have canvassed a host of factors. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in these petitions, submits that the said Departments are not the contesting respondents. In the light of the order that I intend to pass, I would not be adverting to the submissions of the learned Advocates in their entirety.

5. It is undisputed that both the E