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 not at all conducted enquiry, as he has simply accepted the report submitted by the enquiry officer under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act (in short 'the Act') and based on which explanation was sought for from the petitioner, who also has given explanation on 23.04.2007. However, not satisfied with the same, the second respondent has passed the order of dismissal by order dated 20.11.2007, as against which, though revision was filed before the revisional authority under Section 153 of the Act, during the pendency of the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

4. Similarly, the other two writ petitioners also had travelled and accordingly they filed respective writ petitions. That is how all the three writ petitions came to be heard and are disposed of now.

5. Mr. S. Kamadevan, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that, though there was a Section 81 enquiry, that cannot be taken as conclusive proof to establish that the charges framed against the petitioners had been proved.

6. In this context, he would submit that, even though the Section 81 enquiry report may be the basis for framing the charge against these petitioners, once the charges are framed by initiating the disciplinary proceedings and after not satisfied with the explanation given by the delinquents / petitioners, it is the duty of the disciplinary authority to appoint an enquiry officer, who must go into the charges as well as the defence statement and even after the same if he is not satisfied, enquiry must be conducted, where, whatever may be the evidence in the form of oral or documentary evidence, that must be recorded. Based on such evidence to be recorded on behalf of the employer, opportunity should have been given to rebut the same by way of cross examination, if any, and only thereafter the Enquiry Officer must discuss and give his reasons as to how he came to the conclusion that a particular charge is proved or not proved and thereafter he has to complete the enquiry report and submit it to the disciplinary authority for his consideration.

7. When this procedure is contemplated in conducting any disciplinary proceedings, the same has not been followed in this case and in this regard, he had pointed out that the Enquiry Officer's report has only stated the charge as well as the defence taken by way of explanation given by the petitioner and ultimately, in one paragraph the Enquiry Officer has simply stated that, he has accepted the reports of the Section 81 enquiry and having accepted the same, that the charges framed against the petitioners were proved. By making this submission, he has relied upon the following passage of the Enquiry Officer's report dated 05.08.2006 for a perusal.

"Other Language"

8. Even thi