COMMON ORDER ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same, the following common order is passed:- W.P. Nos.1423 and 1424 of 2010 are filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari respectively to quash the judgment dated 17.1.2002 passed by the Vice Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Chennai and the judgment dated 18.9.2001 passed by the Administrative Member of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.823 of 1990. 2. W.P. No.12531 of 2007 has been filed seeking to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records comprised in the proceedings of the first respondent in C.No.A1/8865/2001 dated 17.7.2003 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was directly recruited as Sub Inspector of Police by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli by his proceedings dated 28.9.1987. At the time of completing his probation, the second respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 7.3.1990 calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be terminated with immediate effect in view of alleged delinquencies committed by him, for which departmental action was contemplated. In the said show cause notice, the following delinquencies were enumerated against the petitioner:- " I. (i) Action is being taken to frame charges under Rule 3(b) of the T.N.P.S.S. Rules for dereliction of duty in not registering a case reported on two occasions i.e. one Sivakumar and three others of Kathiramedu Village who had assaulted Chinnapillai and caused bleeding injuries consequent to the murder of one Samidurai. (ii) No action was taken against the son of Samidurai even when they caused damages to the plaintain trees of Palanivelu. II. PR No.60/90 under Rule 3(a) of T.N.P.S.S. is pending gross neglect of duty in having failed to register a case when one complainant Thavidan presented a complaint in the Police station on 4.2.1990 regarding the assault on Thavidan by one Ramalingam." The petitioner challenged the said show cause notice before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and obtained interim stay by an order dated 22.3.1990. However, the second respondent terminated the petitioner from service and discharged him from service with immediate effect, by order dated 24.3.1990. 4. However, the second respondent terminated the petitioner from service and discharged him from service with immediate effect, by order dated 24.3.1990. 4. Hence the petitioner challenged the aforesaid termination order dated 24.3.1990 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai by filing O.A. No.823 of 1990 and obtained stay of the termination order. Thereafter, he was taken back to duty on 10.5.1990. Despite the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner was promoted as Inspector of Police vide G.O.No.3(D) No.92 (Home Department) with effect from 23.6.1999. In the meanwhile, the third respondent also completed the enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 3(a) of T.N.P.S.S. Rules and awarded minor penalty of 'censure' by an order dated 21.6.1990. With respect to PR No.77 of 1990, the charges were found to be not proved and accordingly, all further action was dropped by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram in his proceedings dated 14.6.1998. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 23.7.1998 and the first respondent disposed of the charges framed against him under Rule 3(a) and (b) of the T.N.P.S.S. Rules. 5. In view of the same, the petitioner instructed his counsel to withdraw both O.A. Nos.707 and 823 of 1990 pending before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. Due to some inadvertent error, only O.A. No.707 of 1990 was withdrawn on 1.9.1998 and O.A. No.823 of 1990 was pending. In the meanwhile, he completed probation as per the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram and by virtue of the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram Range dated 8.12.1998 and he was permitted to complete the probation with retrospective effect from 27.3.1990 and his name was brought in the A-list of Sub Inspector of Police with retrospective effect from 28.3.1998. 6. While that be so, on 17.7.2003, a show cause was issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram Range, asking him as to why his services be discharged with immediate effect as O.A. No.823 of 1990 was dismissed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by judgment dated 17.1.2002. Hence, the petitioner immediately challenged the said show cause notice by filing O.A. No.2526 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and by virtue of the stay granted by the Tribunal, he continued to be in service. Hence, the petitioner immediately challenged the said show cause notice by filing O.A. No.2526 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and by virtue of the stay granted by the Tribunal, he continued to be in service. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the Tribunal had passed elaborate orders in O.A. Nos.823 of 1990 on two different occasions i.e. one on 18.9.2001 and another on 27.1.2002. The Tribunal had committed an error in passing two different orders one by the Vice Chairman on 17.1.2002 and another by the Administrative Member on 18.9.2001. 7. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner filed W.P. Nos.1423 and 1424 of 2010 before this Court. On abolition of the Tribunal, O.A. No.2526 of 2003 filed by the petitioner challenging the show cause notice has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. No.12531 of 2007. 8. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, denying the averments made by the petitioner, specifically it is stated in paragraph 10 as follows:- "10. With reference to the averments made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the petitioner filed a petition to withdraw the Original Application No.707/90 and accordingly, the Honourable Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had issued orders dismissing the Origiginal Application No.707/90 on 01.09.1998 as withdrawn. As the PRs pending against the petitioner were disposed of, he was allowed to complete his period of probation with retrospective effect. He was promoted as Inspector of Police as per G.O.(3D).No.92, Home Department, dated 11.05.1999 in view of the fact that his juniors were already officiating as Inspector of Police. But it was left unnoticed that the Original Application No.823/90 challenging the order of termination of probation and his discharge from service passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chengai Anna Range, Chennai in his proceedings C.No.A2/53/Pro/90, Dated 24.3.1990 was then pending. If the petitioner had filed petition for withdrawal of the Original Application No.823/90, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal would have ordered so. The petitioner did not want to withdraw the Original Application No.823/90. The petitioner could not have withdrawn the Original Application No.823/90 himself since he was reinstated into duty only based on the stay granted by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.823/90 on the termination orders issued by the competent authority after duly assessing his performance during the probation period. The petitioner could not have withdrawn the Original Application No.823/90 himself since he was reinstated into duty only based on the stay granted by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.823/90 on the termination orders issued by the competent authority after duly assessing his performance during the probation period. Hence it is not true that he had instructed his counsel to withdraw both the O.As. in Nos.707 and 823/90. However, his promotion to the post of Inspector of Police ordered on 11.5.1999 will not stand in any way to implement the final orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal issued in Original Application No.823/90 on 17.1.2002." 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on record. 10. When the petitioner was Sub Inspector of Police on probation at Kumaratchi police station, the first respondent had issued a show cause notice on 7.3.1990 seeking explanation from him as to why his probation due for completion on 27.3.1990 should not be terminated with immediate effect in view of certain alleged delinquencies. Challenging the said show cause notice, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.707 of 1990 and obtained interim stay. However, the first respondent passed the order dated 24.3.1990 terminating the services of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed O.A. No.823 of 1990 before the Tribunal and obtained interim stay and he was reinstated in service. 11. In the meanwhile, the third respondent also disposed of the charges framed against the petitioner under Rule 3(a) of T.N.P.S.S. Rules and awarded minor penalty of censure by an order dated 21.6.1990. With respect to PR No.77 of 1990, the charges were found not to be true and all further action was dropped by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram in his proceedings dated 14.6.1998. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 23.7.1998 and the first respondent disposed of the charges framed against him under Rule 3(a) and (b) of the T.N.P.S.S. Rules. Thereafter, O.A. No.707 of 1990 was dismissed as withdrawn. O.A. No.823 of 1990 was dismissed by the Tribunal on merits one by the Vice Chairman by judgment dated 17.1.2002 and another by the Administrative Member by judgment dated 18.9.2001. 12. Thereafter, O.A. No.707 of 1990 was dismissed as withdrawn. O.A. No.823 of 1990 was dismissed by the Tribunal on merits one by the Vice Chairman by judgment dated 17.1.2002 and another by the Administrative Member by judgment dated 18.9.2001. 12. Apart from other things, the main contention of the petitioner is that after disposal of the charges framed against him, he instructed his counsel to withdraw both O.A. Nos.707 and 823 of 1990, which were filed before the Tribunal challenging the show cause notice and termination order issued against him by the respondents. But due to inadvertence, O.A. No.707 of 1990 was only withdrawn. Hence the question of dismissal of O.A. No.823 of 1990 by the Tribunal does not arise. Hence the dismissal order dated 18.9.2001 is illegal. Learned counsel also contended that O.A. No.823 of 1990 was dismissed on merits on two occasions one by the Administrative Member on 18.9.2001 and another by the Vice Chairman on 17.1.2001. Since O.A. No.823 of 1990 was dealt with by the Tribunal on two occasions, the orders passed by the Tribunal are illegal and both the orders are liable to be quashed. 13. After hearing the submissions made by either side and perusing the materials available on record, we are not able to accept the argument made by the petitioner that due to inadvertence, O.A. No.707 of 1990 alone was withdrawn. For any reason, as per the instructions of the petitioner, O.A. No.823 of 1990 was not withdrawn, he should have filed a petition for withdrawal instead of keeping it pending. Since the matter was pending, the Tribuna l had taken up the matter for final disposal and passed the order dated 18.9.2001 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 14. From both the above orders, it is seen that the matter was heard by the Bench of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal on 12.7.2001. But, due to some inadvertence, orders were pronounced by the Bench, on two different dates, one scribed by the Vice Chairman and the other one by the Administrative Member. But, in both the orders, the result is same – Dismissal of O.A. filed by the petitioner and the reasons offered in both the orders are also identical. In these circumstances, no prejudice, whatsoever, has occasioned to the petitioner. 15. Moreover, the petitioner filed O.A. No.823 of 1990 against the termination order. But, in both the orders, the result is same – Dismissal of O.A. filed by the petitioner and the reasons offered in both the orders are also identical. In these circumstances, no prejudice, whatsoever, has occasioned to the petitioner. 15. Moreover, the petitioner filed O.A. No.823 of 1990 against the termination order. At the time of admission, interim stay was granted by the Tribunal. By virtue of interim order, the petitioner was reinstated into service. After reinstatement, the petitioner was trying to withdraw O.A. No.823 of 1990. For any reason, the Tribunal has permitted the petitioner to withdraw the said O.A., interim stay granted by the Tribunal at the time of admission would stand vacated. Hence, the dismissal order holds good. 16. For the foregoing reasons, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment dated 17.1.2002 passed by the Vice Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Chennai and judgment dated 18.9.2001 passed by the Administrative Member of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.823 of 1990 respectively. Accordingly, W.P. Nos.1423 and 1424 of 2010 are dismissed. 17. In respect of W.P. No.12531 of 2007, we are of the view that as against the show-cause notice issued by the respondents, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. It is for the petitioner to submit his explanation, if so advised. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.