Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Since the issues involved in the above writ petitions have arisen out of the same facts and circumstances, a common order is passed. .3. In all the above writ petitions, the petitioners were employed in the respondent Corporation. While so, certain demands had been made by the employees Unions and since the respondent Transport Corporation had not initiated any action with regard to the said demands, a strike notice had been given, as required under the Rules in force. Though the strike called by the employees Trade Unions was not illegal, the respondent Transport Corporation had taken a vindictive stance and had framed false charges against the petitioners without giving sufficient opportunity for the petitioners to submit their explanations on the charge memos issued to them. Domestic enquiries had been ordered against the petitioners. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer, the punishment of reduction in the petitioners basic pay for a period of three years had been ordered and it was stated that on restoration, the period of pay reduction would operate to postpone their future increments. The period, during which the petitioners had been under suspension, after the charge memos had been issued on them, was treated as leave period. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that the charges framed against the petitioners were vague and they did not reveal any details regarding the damages or monetary loss caused by the petitioners to the respondent Corporation. Even though no sufficient evidence was available to prove the charges against the petitioners, the enquiry officer had erroneously come to the conclusion that the charges were proved. The petitioners had not been given sufficient opportunity to put forth their cases. Thus, the principles of natural justice had been violated by the enquiry officer, while conducting the domestic enquiry against the petitioners. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer, the punishing authority had imposed the punishment on the petitioners without independently applying his mind. The punishments imposed on the petitioners are serious in nature and the consequences of the punishment imposed on the petitioners are severe in effect. Thus, the punishment imposed on the petitioners are disproportionate to the charges alleged against them. The punishments imposed on the petitioners are serious in nature and the consequences of the punishment imposed on the petitioners are severe in effect. Thus, the punishment imposed on the petitioners are disproportionate to the charges alleged against them. In such circumstances, the petitioners had filed the above writ petitions before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. .5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had placed before this Court an order of this Court, dated 24. 2007, made in W.P.Nos.5648 to 5651 of 1999 and W.P.No.5257 of 1999, involving similar issues arising in similar circumstances, as in the present writ petitions. By its order, dated 24. 2007, this Court had reduced the punishment imposed on the petitioners stating that it was grossly disproportionate, in view of the charges levelled against them. The learned single Judge of this Court, while passing the said order, had found it fit to modify the punishment into one of stoppage of increment for a period of one year, without cumulative effect, instead of remitting the matter back to the respondents, with regard to the issue of reducing the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioners. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that since the petitioners in the present writ petitions are similarly placed persons, who were employed in the respondent Corporation, a similar order may be passed by this Court modifying the punishment into one of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect instead of the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay for a period of three years. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and in view of the order of this Court, dated 24. 2007, made in W.P.Nos.5648 to 5651 of 1999 and W.P.No.5257 of 1999, the punishment imposed on the petitioners in the present writ petitions by the respondent Corporation is modified to that of reduction of stoppage of increment for a period of one year, without cumulative effect. The writ petitions are disposed of, accordingly. Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.4501 of 2001 and W.P.No.4590 of 2001 are closed. No costs.