(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.