M. Venugopal, J.

1. The Appellant has preferred these instant Writ Appeals before this Court as against the common order dated 11.09.2014 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.482 to 484 of 2014.

2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the common order dated 11.09.2014, in W.P.Nos.482 to 484 of 2014 (filed by the 1st Respondent/Petitioners), in paragraph 13, had observed that 'Therefore, it is clear that the Petitioners in these writ petitions were not even informed of the charges that they are obliged to answer. Many of the requirements of principles of natural justice, I admit, could be dispensed with in cases of this nature. The question as to whether, who were examined as witnesses, whether full opportunity was given to cross-examine them, whether documents were produced, etc., may all stand at the fringe of the principles of natural justice. But, the most fundamental requirement, namely that of, putting the delinquents on notice, of the charges against them, can never be dispensed with.' and also, in paragraph 14, had, inter alia, observed that '... even assuming that there was a wrong mentioning of the dates, the doubt created, on the basis of wrong mentioning of the dates, cannot be cleared so easily, especially, in view of the fact that the petitioners were not even put on notice of the charges' and resultantly held that despite the fact that the allegations against the Petitioners are very serious, the ultimate conclusion cannot be approved due to the absence of the most fundamental requirement and allowed the writ petitions.

3. According to the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant (Institute)/1st Respondent, the Learned Single Judge had committed an error in the order dated 11.09.2014 that the circular dated 10.09.2013 was issued by the Appellant to the 1st Respondent (in all the Writ Appeals) is vague and has not specified the nature of allegation upon which the proposed enquiry was to be conducted.

4. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Learned Single Judge in the order dated 11.09.2014 should have observed the fact as stated in the Report dated 16.09.2013 wherein the Enquiry Committee had formed a view that a special enquiry was to be conducted to obtain adequate details so that an appropriate punishment would be given to the students who was involved in the alleged malpractice.

5. Further, it is represented on behalf of the Appellant that the Learned Single Judge had wrongly interpreted the view of the Enquiry Committee which was not a conclusive one but an observation that the enquiry is still pending so as to obtain adequate details about the students involved and the quantum of punishment to be inflicted and further, the same does not point out any specific students and is a general statement seeking extension of enquiry.

6. Expatiating his submissions, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant projects an argument that the Learned Single Judge, in para 4 of the order dated 11.09.2014, had wrongly observed that the Petitioners accepted the allegations made against them and gave letter to the same on 24.09.2013. However, the fact of the matter is that the enquiry was completed on 13.09.2013 and the said enquiry was only a preliminary one and was conducted in respect of students who had allegedly indulged in malpractice of examination and as such, it could not be construed as a conclusive enquiry.

7. The stand taken on behalf of the Appellant before this Court is that the Learned Single Judge had rendered a wrong finding to the effect that the principles of natural justice were not followed and in fact, the Appellant had made ardent efforts to ensure that the students were provided with a fair opportunity to present their case as no innocent should be punished for no wrong of his.

8. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Learned Single Judge although considered the act of impersonation and the malpractice by impersonation as a serious issue fa