Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

1. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 27413 of 2013 is an employee working in the first respondent Bank in the cadre of Secretary, whereas the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 27310 of 2014 is the Board of Directors of the first respondent Bank in the other Writ Petition. The former was filed in 2013, and the latter in 2014. Today at the Bar, the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions sought the leave of the Court to have the Writ Petitions dismissed as withdrawn, for they have initially filed these Writ Petitions by inadvertence overlooking the alternative remedy available to them to impugn Ext. P9. Innocuous I felt the request was. Nevertheless, the learned counsel for additional respondents 6 and 7 and also the learned counsel for the additional respondent 8 in W.P.(C) No. 27143 of 2013 have raised serious objections. They questioned what is said to be the petitioners' ploy to withdraw the Writ Petitions after about two years, when faced with difficulty, having illegally obtained the stay in the beginning.

2. The learned Government Pleader has also expressed reservations about the method adopted by the petitioners.

3. As both the Writ Petitions raise the same issue, involving the same parties, this Court has proposed to dispose of the Writ Petitions through a common judgment. For discussion, I take the facts pleaded and the documents filed in W.P.(C) No. 27143 of 2013 as the basis.

4. Shri. Arun Krishna Dhan, the learned counsel for additional respondents 6 and 7 has taken me through the entire record. Chronologically submitting, the learned counsel has asserted that the petitioner joined the service of the first respondent Bank on 11.02.1982 as an Attender. Later, he obtained a series of promotions till 2012 when he became the Secretary. According to the learned counsel, on 01.04.2009, the petitioner was promoted as the Chief Accountant on the strength of the degree certificate produced by him.

5. In further elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has allegedly obtained the graduation certificate from the 5th respondent University at Meerut, as if he had undergone the course through the 4th respondent College at Calicut. He has further contended that the additional 6th respondent initially made a complaint to the Joint Registrar, the second respondent, seeking an enquiry into the genuineness of the degree certificate produced by the petitioner. Acting on the said complaint, the second respondent, in turn, has requested the 5th respondent to supply information concerning the degree certificate the petitioner is said to have obtained from the said University.

6. Eventually, the 5th respondent issued Ext. R6(a) communication making it clear that the University has never issued any degree certificate to the petitioner. Subsequently, the President of the first respondent Bank has submitted Ext. R6(b) representation to the second respondent. He has asserted that the Bank has received further clarification, Ext. R6(c), from the 5th respondent University that its first communication was a mistake of fact. He, in fact, informed the second respondent that the petitioner did obtain a degree certificate from the said University after pursuing his graduation. Hence, he pleaded with the second respondent not to proceed further against the petitioner on the issue of his producing a false certificate.

7. Not satisfied with the 5th respondent's supposed corrective communication, as was submitted by the President, this time, the third respondent has sought further clarification from the 5th respondent. Ext. R6(d) is the reply. As can be seen, the 5th respondent has informed the 3rd respondent that it has never issued Ext. R6(c) alleged clarification, and that its earlier communication in Ext. R6(a) still stands.

8. In the face of these damning developments, the third respondent directed a vigilance enquiry in terms of S. 68-A of the Kerala Co-operative Socie