( 1 ) IN these three writ appeals, as common questions of law and fact are involved, they are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE appellants are working in A. P. State Co-operative Bank Limited, (for short apcob ) in different capacities. Sri M. Yalla Reddy, the appellant in WA No. 892 of 2001, is the Chief General Manager, and insofar as the matter relating to initiation of disciplinary proceedings, is concerned, he is governed by Regulation 51 of the APCOB service Regulations. The said regulation reads: (a) An employee against whom disciplinary action is proposed or likely to be taken shall be given a charge-sheet clearly setting forth the circumstances appearing against him and a date shall be fixed for enquiry, sufficient time being given to him/her to enable him/her to appear and give his/her explanation as also to produce any evidence that he/she may wish to tender in his/her defence. He/she shall be permitted, if so desired by him/her, to appear before the officer conducting enquiry, to cross-examine any witness whose evidence is adduced to prove the charges and produce evidence in his/her defence he/she shall also be given a hearing as records the nature of the proposed punishment in case any charge is held to be proved. (b) Pending such enquiry he/she may be suspended but if on the conclusion of the enquiry, he/she is acquitted on the charge (s) he/she shall be deemed to have been on duty and shall be entitled to the full pay and allowances and to all other privileges for the period of suspension, and if some punishment other than dismissal is inflicted, the whole or part of the period of suspension, may, at the discretion of the competent authority be treated as on duty with the right to a corresponding portion of the pay, allowances etc.

( 3 ) INSOFAR as D. Ramesh Sinha, the appellant in WA No. 562 of 2001 and Sri K. Tulasi prasad, the appellant in WA No. 848 of 2001, are concerned, they are governed by the Common Cadre regulations, and the provision relating to suspension is engrafted in Regulation 37. The said Regulation reads: an employee of the Common Cadre may be placed under suspension from service, pending investigation of enquiry into grave charges, where such suspension is necessary in the interests of the Bank. The Member secretary is the authority competent to keep a Cadre officer under suspension. (Approved by CCandrcs vide Lr. Rc. No. 38040/92/cl, dated 6-6-1993 ).

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that charge memos were issued to the appellants in wa No. 562 of 2001 and WA No. 848 of 2001 on 21-12-2000, asking them to submit their explanation to the said charge memos within fifteen days. It is also not in dispute that they submitted their explanations on 8-1-2001 and 9-1-2001 respectively. However, by proceedings dated 10-2-2001, impugned in the writ petitions, the appellants were placed under suspension. The order of suspension relating to Sri K. Tulasi Prasad, reads: whereas certain irregularities took place in sanctioning the loan of Rs. 76. 00/- lakhs to m/s. Kurnool Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. , by admitting bogus land documents and the internal probe conducted into the matter prima facie established the lapse on the part of Sri K. Tulasi Prasad, who was then working as Manager, IF Department, in the acceptance of fake documents and non-conduct of field inspection and non-cross verification of valuation of the collateral securities with reference to the valuation recorded in Sub-Registrar Office. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by virtue of Cadre Regulation no. 37 (l) Sri K. Tulasi Prasad, Class II officer and presently working as General manager (FAC) at Anantapur DCCB, anantapur, is hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect, pending further enquiry on the subject-matter and in the interest of the bank. It is further ordered that during the suspension the Head Quarters of Sri K. Tulasi Prasad shall be An