ORDER :

Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions is one and the same, with the consent of the learned counsel for both sides, all these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. These petitioners were erstwhile employees of the second respondent Society. While so, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against these petitioners on similar set of charges. In order to appreciate the facts, the facts relating to W.P.No.14620 of 2010 are required to be noticed for the purpose of disposal of all these cases.

3. That the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in the second respondent Society, against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuing a charge memo by the second respondent dated 15.04.2005, where there were three charges and by issuing the charge memo, explanation was sought for from the petitioner, who had given the same on 29.06.2005. Not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct domestic enquiry, before whom, though enquiry was conducted and he had given his enquiry report on 05.08.2006, it is the case of the petitioner that, in fact the Enquiry Officer has