Manmohan, J.

1. The issue that arises for consideration in the present two writ petitions is the scope of judicial review of a charge-sheet by the Central Administrative Tribunal and by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Petitioner, Govind Prajapati and Bhaskar Joshi, have filed the present writ petitions being W.P. (C) Nos. 2341 and 2342 of 2008 seeking quashing of the impugned judgment and orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") dated 19th February, 2008 passed in O.A. No. 1781/2007 and O.A. No. 1881/2007 as well as for allowing of reliefs claimed in the above Original Applications filed before the Tribunal. In essence, the Petitioners seek revocation of their suspension, quashing of inquiry proceedings initiated against them and annulment of appointment of the Inquiry Officer. Since common issues of fact and law arise in both the writ petitions and further as they have been disposed of by a common judgment and order of the Tribunal, we are disposing of these two writ petitions by way of a common judgment and order.

3. Briefly stated, the material facts of these cases are that the two Petitioners who were working as empanelled casual artist and part-time performer applied for the post of Lineman (Sound) and Actor respectively with the Song and Drama Division of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. According to the Petitioners, the advertisement in the Employment News contained a clause for relaxation of qualifications. The Selection Committee of the Song and Drama Division recommended the Petitioners for selection in the Song and Drama Division with two years probation. Subsequently, Petitioners were confirmed in their respective posts.

.4. The Respondents in their reply filed before the Tribunal have stated that while giving a response to an application filed under the Right to Information Act it was discovered by the Department that as many as 17 officials had been appointed in the years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 without fulfillling the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post. It was also found that some of the selected candidates had given wrong factual information about their caste or submitted fake caste (ST) certificate. The Respondents further averred that the then Director in the Song and Drama division, Shri Prem Matiyani who was connected with the said irregular and fraudulent appointments obstructed the correct information from being given under the Right to Information Act. The Respondents also stated in their reply that on a detailed scrutiny of Petitioners applications, a Deputy Director in the Respondents Headquarters found that the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2341 of 2008 i.e. Govind Prajapati did not possess the professional qualification and experience required for the post of Lineman (Sound) to which he was appointed and he also did not possess the wiremans license required for the post. Similarly, in the case of the Petitioner, Bhaskar Joshi in W.P.(C) No. 2342 of 2008, the Deputy Director found that the said Petitioner did not possess the professional qualification required for the post of Actor. According to the respondents a large number of irregular and illegal appointments had taken place in the Song and Drama Division during the tenure of Shri Prem Matiyani as Director.

5. In the month of August, 2007, both the Petitioners were placed under suspension and a separate memorandum was issued to each of them. Simultaneously, an Inquiry Officer was also appointed.

6. The Petitioners challenged the aforesaid action of the Respondents by filing petitions before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal in its well reasoned order has, keeping in view the Supreme Courts guidelines for quashing of a charge-sheet, rightly held that any interference by it at the stage of issuance of the charge-sheet would amount to pre-judging the issue as the correctness of the charges are yet to be looked into by