JUDGMENT

A S Chandurkar, J. - Since both these writ petitions raise challenge to the award dated 27.12.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Nagpur, these writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of counsel for the parties.

3. The facts giving rise to the impugned award are that the petitioneremployee in Writ Petition No.8141/2018 had made an application for being appointed on a post in the clerical cadre with the respondent-employer. On 14.10.2008 the employee submitted his bio-data along with an attestation form. He gave various particulars as required in the form. Column 19 pertains to particulars of any prosecution/detention/fine/conviction awarded to the applicant while column 20 related to particulars of any proceedings pending against the applicant in any Court of law. The employee answered both the columns in the negative. On 05.01.2009 the petitioner was issued an appointment order on probation for a period of six months on the post of Assistant (Accounts and Cash) and he was directed to report at the Chandra