(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER)

1. The two writ petitions are directed against two orders, both dated 25.8.2009 and the notification dated 5.11.2009 whereby the petitioner, who was, at the relevant time, a Judge in the labour Court, has been ordered to be compulsorily retired pursuant to two separate departmental proceedings by way of inquiry No.16 of 2001 and No. 6 of 2002 in connection with two charge sheets dated 19.12.2001 and 17.9.2002.

1.1 Rule. The learned Counsel for respondents have waived the service and with consent of respondents the matter is taken up, at petitioner's request, for final decision. In view of the facts of the case, and since the petitioner in both the petitions is the same officer, both the petitions are decided by this common order. The learned advocates of the parties to the proceedings have made submissions accordingly.

2. The petitioner has challenged the orders of compulsory retirement contending that the orders are unfair and the conclusions of the inquiry officers holding him guilty of the alleged misconduct are not supported by any cogent evidence.

2.1 The relevant facts which emerge from the record are that the petitioner was a