JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. All these petitions have been preferred with same cause of action, and, as such, are being decided together by the common order. Since, facts are identical, therefore, WPSS No. 302 of 2017 is being treated as leading one and facts of the same are taken into consideration.

2. The petitioners in the above bunch of petitions are praying for following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 11.04.2016 passed by the respondent no. 4, Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun whereby the revision petition preferred by the petition has been dismissed, filed as Annexure No. 18.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2, Chairman/Head of the Department, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Haridwar whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner had been dismissed, filed as Annexure No. 15

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order date 07.10.2014 passed by the respondent no. 3 Secretary, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Haridwar whereby the punishment has been awarded to the petitioner of stoppage of two increments for two years and censure entry has been awarded for the year 2013-14.

3. Now, brief facts of the case are that there is an Association of employees registered under the societies Registration Act, namely, “Association of employees in Uttarakhand Public Service Commission” and all the petitioners are the office bearers of the said Association. There were some general demands of the employees and the Association requested the Authorities to consider their demands but there was no response from the Authorities, consequently, various representations were made by the office bearers of the Association, i.e. on 12.07.2013, 25.09.2013, 29.10.2013, 30.10.2013, 25.11.2013, 26.11.2023 and 29.11.2023 but the officials of the Commission have not responded on their representations and the grievance were not redressed, Consequently, the Association passed a Resolution on 28.11.2013 decided to go on strike from 04.12.2013 to 18.12.2013.

4. Since, the office bearers and the employees were on strike in respect of several demands, the respondent proceeded with the departmental proceedings by issuing separate charge sheet to each of the officer bearer of the Association, and the Inquiry Officer was appointed and disciplinary proceedings were concluded and on the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order punishing each of the office bearers by order dated 07.10.2024 by stopping two increments for two years and censure entry for the year 2013-14.

5. Being aggrieved with the disciplinary proceeding against the office bearers, all the employees submitted a joint representation to the Commission and the Commission constituted a Committee and reconsider the matter and on 16.10.2014, passed an order giving warning to all the employees including all the office bearer of the Association by treating strike period as earned leave.

There is no dispute that the order dated 16.10.2024 pertains to all the employees including officer bearers wherein warning was given by converting the period of strike to earned leave.

6. The petitioners herein, who are in fact office bearer of the Association, preferred departmental appeal against the order dated 07.10.2014, however, their departmental appeal is rejected on 26.03.2015 against which revision was filed that too was also rejected on 11.04.2016 and now being aggrieved with the order dated 07.10.2014, 26.03.2015 and 11.04.2016, the petitioners approached to this Court.

7. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Sandeep Kothari and Mr. Bhagwat Mahra argued that in fact the order of punishment dated 07.10.2014 was merged into the subsequent order dated 16