Sanjeev Narula, J.

The present appeals arising under Clause X of the Letters Patent Appeal are directed against the common impugned judgment dated 5th March 2018 whereby the WP(C) nos. 6155/2016, 6156/2016 and 6513/2016 have been dismissed.

2. While dismissing the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge has upheld the order of the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "DST") passed in favor of the Appellants. However, at the same time, learned Single Judge has granted liberty to the Respondent-School to conduct de novo inquiry against the Appellants.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Since the facts in all the three writ petitions were quite similar and the orders impugned were challenged on more or less identical grounds, the petitions were heard together and decided by a common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The present appeals likewise, challenge the impugned judgment mostly on identical grounds and hence, the same are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity, the essential facts of one of the appeals being LPA No. 199/2018 are being noted separately.

4. The Appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher with Respondent School on 15th July 1994. On the introduction of the 5th Pay Commission, the Schools of Govt. of NCT of Delhi implemented the pay revision w.e.f. 1st January 1996. The Management of the Respondent-School however implemented the pay revision in lieu of 5th Pay Commission belatedly w.e.f 1st April 1997 as against 1st January 1996. The Appellant and some other teachers filed writ petitions seeking its implementation from the cut-off date of 1st January 1996. The said petition WP(C) No. 19668/2005 and 5046/1999 were decided in favour of the Appellant and other employees by this court vide judgment dated 11th January 2010. The said judgment was later upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 286/2010 and 308/2010 vide judgment dated 11th May 2012.

5. Despite the orders of this Court, the Respondent-School failed to grant the Appellant and the other employees the benefit of the 5th Pay Commission, constraining the Appellant to file a contempt petition no. 630/2012.

6. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, apparently the management of the Respondent-School attempted to arrive at a settlement with its employees. Appellant did not accept the said terms. Thereafter, Appellant was served with a memo dated 31st October 2011 wherein allegations were made against her to the effect that she had tampered with her service book. The memo was refuted by the Appellant along with a request to the Respondent-School to provide her with the copies of the alleged tampered service book. The request was turned down by the Respondent.

7. On 7th March 2012, Respondent-School issued a charge sheet and informed the Appellant that a disciplinary committee in its meeting held on 28th February 2012 has resolved to initiate disciplinary action against her. This charge sheet was also duly replied to by the Appellant denying the allegations and charges made against her.

8. The inquiry conducted against the Appellant ultimately culminated into the inquiry report dated 13th March 2013. The Appellant submitted its response/representation on the inquiry report and on its consideration, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 8th April 2013, inflicted upon the Appellant, a major penalty of punishment of "removal from service".

LPA Nos. 210/2018 and 214/2018

9. Likewise, in LPA Nos. 210/2018 and 214/2018, the Appellants Dinesh Chand Sharma and Sadhna Payal were appointed as Physical Training Instructor and Assistant Teacher respectively with the Respondent School and a similar charge-sheet was issued against them inter-alia alleging tampering of service book, neglecting of duties etc. The said charge sheet resulted in enquiry proceedings and subsequent order of compulsory reti