JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Ref.Che.Mu.Na.No.Pa A/771/2016/B5 dated 18.11.2017 on the file of the second respondent and the consequential order passed in Ref.No.051/2018/E1 dated 02.08.2018 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner as Cane Assistant, with consequential benefits.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the order dated 18.11.2017 and the consequential order dated 02.08.2018 with a consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner as Cane Assistant, with consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner has been recruited as Cane Assistant on 22.11.1989 and later joined as Cane Assistant on 10.10.2008 at Arignar Anna Sugar Mills at Kurungulam. While he was working, a charge memo dated 07.06.2016 was issued levelling 10 charges against the petitioner, the petitioner submitted explanation on 2.08.2016. In pursuant to the charge memo, an enquiry officer was appointed, after enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted is report dated 10.04.2017, exonerating the petitioner from 7 charges but held 3 charges are proved (charges No.3, 7 and 10). In the meanwhile, FIR was registered in Crime No.39 of 2015 on 17.12.2015. Thereafter, the second respondent issued a second show cause notice dated 05.08.2017 and the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation dated 05.09.2017 with regard to charges which were held to be proved by the enquiry officer. However, without considering the petitioner''s explanation, the second respondent has passed an impugned order dated 18.11.2017 alleging that due to negligence, the petitioner caused a loss of Rs.41,04,270/- to the Sugar Mill and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service by citing Clause 2(f) of the Standing Orders. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred an Appeal dated 30.12.2017 to the appellate authority, the first respondent herein has passed the consequential impugned order dated 02.08.2018, confirming the punishment imposed by the second respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The respondents have filed a counter stating that due to negligence, the petitioner caused huge loss to the tune of Rs.41,04,270/- to the Sugar Mill. Hence, he was issued with charge memo and consequently an FIR was registered in Crime No.39 of 2015 on the file of District Crime Branch, Thanajavur against the petitioner and some other persons. 3. The respondents have filed a counter stating that due to negligence, the petitioner caused huge loss to the tune of Rs.41,04,270/- to the Sugar Mill. Hence, he was issued with charge memo and consequently an FIR was registered in Crime No.39 of 2015 on the file of District Crime Branch, Thanajavur against the petitioner and some other persons. Without prejudice to the criminal action, departmental proceedings were initiated. The petitioner had participated in the enquiry and was given sufficient opportunity. Based on the enquiry report, the petitioner was terminated from service through the impugned orders. The contention of the respondents is that the charges against the petitioner is more specific, and as such the claim of the petitioner is that some of the charges are not proved will not be a bar for the disciplinary action against the other specific charge against the petitioner. Hence, the three charges are clearly proved, according to the documentary and primary evidence, there cannot be any oral denial is permissible against the documentary evidence relied by the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority, since the rule of law strictly achieved with the findings of the disciplinary authority is upheld. Hence, the respondents prayed to dismiss this Writ Petition. 4. Heard Mr. Karthik, for M/s.Lajapathi Roy and Associates, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Saji Bino, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 5. The charges that were held to be proved are as under: Charge No.(3): During the tenure the petitioner have failed to attend the basic duty of field inspection and failed to obtain signatures of farmers in the field registers which comes under the indiscipline as stated under clause 26(17) of the Standing Orders. Charge No.(7): The petitioner have not followed the rule as mentioned in the appointment order to discharge the duties diligently and wholeheartedly with devotion, thereby liable to indiscipline. Charge No.(10): By habitually violating the Standing Orders the petitioner have committed indiscipline under clause 26(8) of Standing Orders. Even for charge no.3, the petitioner has submitted that that he had proved before the enquiry officer signatures of the cane growers were obtained to agree with the correctness of their field map and for receiving a copy of agreement book. Moreover, the petitioner has taken efforts for all seasons from 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 have achieved 100% cane registration. Even for charge no.3, the petitioner has submitted that that he had proved before the enquiry officer signatures of the cane growers were obtained to agree with the correctness of their field map and for receiving a copy of agreement book. Moreover, the petitioner has taken efforts for all seasons from 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 have achieved 100% cane registration. On perusal of the above charges, on the face of it would be evident that the charges are vague and general. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charges are vague and general and hence the impugned punishment order is disproportionate and hence cannot be sustained in law. 6. The next contention of the petitioner is that the law is well settled if the disciplinary authority is of the view that the report of the Enquiry officer exonerating the delinquent is not acceptable, it is open to the disciplinary authority to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer by giving an opportunity to the delinquent and only after calling for explanation from the concerned delinquent, the disciplinary authority could pass appropriate orders. This law has become well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in 1998 7 SCC 84 which has been followed by various Courts and this principle has been totally violated in the present case. On perusal of the documents it is seen that the disciplinary authority has ignored the findings of the Enquiry Officer wherein the petitioner was exonerated from 7 charges. But the respondents without application of mind had mechanically passed an order of punishment of dismissal from service. As rightly pointed out by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority has power reject the enquiry officer’s report and to deviate from the findings. But before doing so the disciplinary authority ought to have issued notice to the petitioner and stated the reasons for deviating and also obtained the explanation from the petitioner. Whereas under the very same charges, the disciplinary authority, without giving opportunity to the petitioner, has found him guilty and hence, the punishment imposed on the petitioner that is dismissal from service is totally non application of mind. Consequently, the first respondent who has also confirmed the punishment order is also passed without application of mind and totally against the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the first respondent who has also confirmed the punishment order is also passed without application of mind and totally against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, on this ground also the petitioner is in advantageous position. 7. The contention of the petitioner is that as per G.O.Ms.No.68, the Commissioner of Sugars, Chennai is the appropriate authority for ''A'' and ''B'' category officers. Hence, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to pass suspension order or to issue charge memo or to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings. On perusal of the said G.O.Ms.No.68 for Cane Officer, Cane Development Assistant, the Cadre Authority will be the Commissioner of Sugars, who will decide to recruit, promote, transfer of officers and the confidential report will be maintained by the Commissioner of Sugars. This would be evident from the clause 5 of the Government Order which is extracted hereunder: “5. Cadre Authority: The Commissioner of Sugar will be the cadre authority and the cadre authority will decide the recruitment, promotion and transfer of the officers. The confidential report on the officers in A and B grade will be maintained in the office of the common cadre authority. While directly recruiting to the entry level officers posts, all the conditions prescribed by the Government with regard to age at the entry and retirement and age relaxation communal rotation then and there ordered by the Government is applicable. In respect of promotion to the posts in Grade B there will not be any limit for entry. For promotion as mentioned above a common seniority will be adopted by the cadre authority for all the above posts. If the date of joining of the two individuals are same, the date of acquiring the requisite qualifications will be taken into account for deciding the seniority in a particular feeder Category. Once the superintendents are promoted as Office Manager and the Accountants are promoted as Accounts Officer they will be coming under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Co-op, & public sector sugar Mills Managerial Common Cadre System. Service conditions stipulated in Special bylaw and standing Orders will be applicable to Grade C and D. The rules and regulations stipulated to TNCS Act and Rules are applicable to Grade A and B officers”. Service conditions stipulated in Special bylaw and standing Orders will be applicable to Grade C and D. The rules and regulations stipulated to TNCS Act and Rules are applicable to Grade A and B officers”. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Commissioner of Sugars have delegated the power to the respondents as per the proceedings File No.1666/2015/E1 dated 20.11.2015. Under G.O.Ms.No.68, the Government Order has not granted any delegation of power to the Commissioner of Sugar. When there is no power for the Commissioner of Sugar to delegate his power, then the impugned charge memo as well as the suspension order are not legally sustainable. The issue was considered by another Learned Single Judge in W.P. (MD)No.2709 and 3400 of 2018 vide order dated 04.06.2018 and has held that the delegation is not legally sustainable. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder: “5. This Court made it clear on the very outset that it would not go into the merits of the matter. The preliminary issue that is to be taken up for consideration as to whether the third respondent has the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of dismissal. If this issue is answered in favour of the writ petitioners, then there is no need to go into the merits of the matter. To sustain the contention that the Chief Executive of the Sugar Mill is having the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of termination, the learned counsel appearing for the management invokes Rule 175 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988. It can be seen there from that Chapter XVIII applies only to the Co-operative Societies Sugar Mills. Rule 189 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, sets out the power and functions of the Managing Director of the Sugar Mill. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that though as per Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1988, the competent Authority is to deal with the common cadre, till date nobody has been designated. He would therefore submit that it is only the Managing Director, who must be taken as the competent authority for any common cadre servant. The learned counsel attempted to distinguish between the Cooperative sugar mills and the public sector sugar mills. The Commissioner of Sugar mills has administrative control over the public sector sugar mills. He would therefore submit that it is only the Managing Director, who must be taken as the competent authority for any common cadre servant. The learned counsel attempted to distinguish between the Cooperative sugar mills and the public sector sugar mills. The Commissioner of Sugar mills has administrative control over the public sector sugar mills. Likewise, in the case of the Co-operative Sugar Mills, it is only the concerned Managing Director, who is the competent authority. Referring to Rule 189(8) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, it was submitted that it is the Managing Director who has the disciplinary jurisdiction. He referred to Rc.No.23941/83/C1 dated 14.03.1985 and R.C.No.G1/25600/1999, dated 26.08.1999 to drive home the point that the Chief Executive is empowered to initiate disciplinary actions as per the provisions contained in the Special bylaws. He wanted this Court to sustain the jurisdiction of the Chief Executive to pass the impugned orders. 7. This Court is unable to agree. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioners belong to the common cadre system. The common cadre system, which was abolished during the year 1997, was revived for the Officers of the Co-operative and Public Sector Sugar Mills and orders to that effect were issued vide G.O.(MS).No.68, Industries (MIC.2 dated 01.03.2011 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 26.10.2011. Even the learned counsel for the respondents cannot dispute this factual position. 9. Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Act”) provides for constitution of common cadre of service. Section 75(4)(a) of the Act is relevant for the present case. The said provision reads as under: “The registered society under which an employee borne on a common cadre of service is employed, may request the competent authority to take disciplinary action on, or action on, or to transfer, such employee, and if the competent authority fails to take action within a period of thirty days from the date of such request, the registered society may report the matter to the Registrar for taking such action as he may deem necessary.” 10. A mere reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that at the request of the registered society under which the employee borne on a common cadre of service is employed, the competent authority may take disciplinary action. A mere reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that at the request of the registered society under which the employee borne on a common cadre of service is employed, the competent authority may take disciplinary action. If the competent authority does not take action, the registered Society may report the matter to the Registrar for taking such action as he may deem necessary. 11. The petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.2709 of 2008 was transferred from one mill to another mill in his career. In fact, that is the special feature of being borne on a common cadre system. When the petitioner is borne on a common cadre system, it is only the competent authority, who is empowered by law, who can take action at the instance of the aggrieved Society. If the management of Aringar Anna Sugar Mill is of the view that the writ petitioners herein have committed irregularities, it should have written to the competent authority to initiate disciplinary action against them. If the competent authority had remained inactive, the Registrar should have been approached by the management. This is the scheme envisaged by the statute. But, in this case, the Chief Executive of Aringar Anna Sugar Mill had issued the charge memo, appointed the Enquiry Officer and also dismissed the petitioners from service. Such an approach is clearly not in consonance with the statutory scheme set out in Section 75 of the Act. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the management would refer to the Rules. It is well settled that if there is a conflict between the provision in the Act and the rules framed thereunder, it is the Act that will prevail over the rules. Therefore, the issue on hand must be tested in the light of Section 75 of the Act. No purpose will be served by looking into the rules. Likewise, there is no point in referring to the Circulars that were issued prior to the revival of the common cadre system. Again there is no point in comparing the commissioner of Sugar Mill and the Chief Executive. The Commissioner of Sugar Mill is the authority, who, has the administrative control over the public sector sugar mills. But for each Co-operative sugar mill there is a Chief Executive. It is the intention of the legislature that there will be one common cadre service. The Commissioner of Sugar Mill is the authority, who, has the administrative control over the public sector sugar mills. But for each Co-operative sugar mill there is a Chief Executive. It is the intention of the legislature that there will be one common cadre service. But having as many number of competent authorities as there are individual sugar mills would defeat the very purpose of having a common cadre system. If the Chief Executive of the Sugar mill himself can be the competent authority, the question of the sugar mill writing to the competent authority would out even arise. Therefore, on a careful consideration of Section 75 of the Act one can come to the conclusion that the competent authority is someone who is outside the society. The officers working in more than one sugar mill belonging to common cadre which encompasses the various sugar mills. Therefore, the stand of the learned counsel for the respondents is not acceptable.” 8. The contention of the petitioner is that the Commissioner of Sugar is the competent authority but the respondent’s contention is that the Chief Executive is the competent authority. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has dealt with the issue of competent authority vide order dated 04.06.2018 in W.P.(MD).No.2709 and 3400 of 2018, wherein it has been held the Commissioner of Sugar is the competent authority and the Chief Executive is not empowered to take disciplinary action. Aggrieved over, the respondents had preferred Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD)Nos.1143 and 1144 of 2018 and the Hon''ble Division Bench vide order dated 28.08.2018 had allowed the Writ Appeals wherein it is held that the G.O.Ms.No.68 was issued only for appointment, promotion, inter se seniority and remitted the case back to the learned Single Judge with a direction to decide the case on merits as well. The contention of the respondent before the Hon’ble Division Bench is that through G.O.Ms.No.68 Common Cadre System was introduced which is meant for the service conditions, inter se seniority and promotion. Hence the said G.O. would not make the Aringar Anna Sugar Mill a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and consequently the employees would not become the Society employees. The net result would be section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act 1983 cannot have any application. Accepting the said argument, the Hon’ble Division had allowed the writ appeal. The net result would be section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act 1983 cannot have any application. Accepting the said argument, the Hon’ble Division had allowed the writ appeal. The Hon’ble Division Bench has held that the G.O.Ms.No.68 was issued only to deal with the appointment, inter se seniority and promotion and to deal with this alone would not make the Aringar Anna Sugar Mills become a registered society. 9. The contention of the writ petitioner is that the respondents accept the applicability of the G.O.Ms.No.68 to the respondent Mill, but respondents only state that the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act 1983 is not applicable to the Mill, since the G.O.Ms.No.68 only speaks about service conditions like appointment, inter se seniority and promotion of common cadre system. But according to the petitioner the said Act, 1983 is applicable for disciplinary proceedings also, since the G.O.Ms.No.68 covers the service conditions like disciplinary proceeding as well. In short, the question that ought to be considered is whether the phrase “service conditions” includes disciplinary proceeding. 10. To resolve this the G.O.Ms.No.68 and Section 75 of the Act ought to be scrutinized. The G.O.Ms.No.68 was passed to revive the Common Cadre System and the relevant portion of the said G.O. is extracted hereunder: “In the Government Order first read above, orders were issued to for the creation of Common Cadre System for the officers working in the Co-operative and Public Sector Sugar Mills and the Director of Sugar was permitted to create a Common Cadre System for the second and third level officers working in the Co-operative and Public Sector Sugar Mills duly authorising him to frame necessary rules and regulations for appointment, transfer etc. 2. Subsequently during the year 1997, after reviewing the functioning of the common cadre system, Government felt that since each Co-op. Sugar Mills is a separate legal entity, the officers, staff and workers working in a sugar mill should be the employees of the particular Co-op. sugar Mills only and ordered the abolition of common cadre system in Co-op. Sugar Mills in Government order 2nd read above. Consequent on the above, the officers and employees who were covered under the above said system were de-caderised and positioned in the respective sugar mills permanently based upon their option and in public interest. sugar Mills only and ordered the abolition of common cadre system in Co-op. Sugar Mills in Government order 2nd read above. Consequent on the above, the officers and employees who were covered under the above said system were de-caderised and positioned in the respective sugar mills permanently based upon their option and in public interest. Necessary guidelines were also issued by the Commissioner of Sugar prescribing the procedure to be adopted for filling up of the vacancies and the service conditions of the erstwhile Common Cadre employees. The mode of recruitment to the second and third level officer posts in the erstwhile Common Cadre System was specified as Direct Recruitment and a selection committee was also constituted for the said purpose. 3. Now, the Commissioner of Sugar has sent a proposal for the revival of Common Cadre System in the name of “Tamil Nadu Co-operative and Public Sector Sugar Mills Managerial Common Cadre System” in the Co-operative and Public Sector Sugar Mills for the effective functioning of the Sugar Sector, since the above system would go a long way in creating the ladder of promotion to the eligible in-house personnel from the entry level officers posts up to the level of Chief Officers in their particular field. He has also stated that, the proposed policy of recruitment and promotion would not only satisfy / fulfil the manpower requirement of the mills but would serve as a boon to the qualified personnel to get into the higher posts by offering new avenues for promotion. He has therefore requested the Government to approve the proposal and issue orders in this regard. The above G.O. is applicable to Co-operative and Public Sector Sugar Mills. The earlier G.O. has permitted the Director of Sugar to create a Common Cadre System and to frame necessary rules and regulations for appointment, transfer etc. Then the common cadre system was dispensed and each sugar mills was considered as separate legal entity. Then again the common cadre system was reviewed and the service conditions was formulated to accommodate for promotion. For this the G.O. has passed. Under the Heading “Annexure” the “Regulations for the Tamil Nadu Coop and Public Sugar Mills Managerial Officers Common Cadre System” was dealt with. The Cane Officers are classified as Cadre B. Thereafter it states that the Commissioner of Sugars will be the Cadre Controlling Authority. For this the G.O. has passed. Under the Heading “Annexure” the “Regulations for the Tamil Nadu Coop and Public Sugar Mills Managerial Officers Common Cadre System” was dealt with. The Cane Officers are classified as Cadre B. Thereafter it states that the Commissioner of Sugars will be the Cadre Controlling Authority. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: All officers in category A & B category will come under the purview of Tamil Nadu Coop. and Public Sector Sugar Mills Managerial Common Cadre System. (ii) All the officers in A and B grade are liable for transfer to any sugar mill, but they will not be as far as possible, posted in their native district. (iii) Confidential Reports for all officers in A and B category will be maintained by the Commissioner of Sugar, who will be the Cadre Controlling Authority for the A & B category officers. (iv) There will not be any change in the pay structure due to the above classification and redesignation of posts, if any. Thereafter the said G.O. states about the recruitment, pay etc. Then comes the crucial portion of the power and authority of the “Cadre Authority”, which is extracted hereunder: 5. Cadre Authority: The Commissioner of Sugar will be the cadre authority and the cadre authority will decide the recruitment, promotion and transfer of the officers. The confidential report on the officers in A and B grade will be maintained in the office of the common cadre authority. While directly recruiting to the entry level officers posts, all the conditions prescribed by the Government with regard to age at the entry and retirement and age relaxation, communal rotation then and there ordered by the Government is applicable. In respect of promotion to the post in Grade-B there will not be any age limit for entry. For promotion as mentioned above a common seniority will be adopted by the cadre authority for all the above posts. If the date of joining of the two individuals are same, the date of acquiring the requisite qualifications will be taken into account for deciding the seniority in a particular feeder category. Once the Superintendents are promoted as Office Manager and the Accountants are promoted as Accounts Officer they will be coming under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Co-op. & Public Sector Sugar Mills Managerial Common Cadre System. Once the Superintendents are promoted as Office Manager and the Accountants are promoted as Accounts Officer they will be coming under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Co-op. & Public Sector Sugar Mills Managerial Common Cadre System. Service conditions stipulated in Special bylaw and Standing Orders will be applicable to Grade-C and D. The rules and regulations stipulated to TNCS Act and Rules are applicable to Grade A and B officers. When the G.O.Ms.No.68 specifically states that when the Cadre “C & D” is promoted to Cadre “B”, then the employee would come within the purview of Common Cadre service. And the G.O. further proceeds that the “Service Conditions” for C and D cadre is Special Bylaw and Standing Orders. And the “Service Conditions” for A and B cadre is the rules and regulations stipulated to Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and Rules. When the G.O.Ms.No.68 states the “service conditions” are applicable as stated in the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and Rules, then the phrase “service conditions” ought to be analysed, especially whether it includes disciplinary proceedings. The section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act would throw some light. 11. Section 73 is placed under the chapter VIII under the Heading “Paid Officers and Servants of Society”. The section 73 deals with the “Appointment of paid officers and servants of registered society and their conditions of service”. Section 74 “Recruitment Bureaus”. Section 75 deals with “Constitution of common cadre of service” and in this section deals with all service conditions including the disciplinary actions. Under 75(3) deals with suspension, disciplinary proceedings and punishment. 75(4)(a) deals with disciplinary proceedings and the provision is extracted hereunder: “(4) (a) The registered society under which an employee borne on a common cadre of service is employed may request the competent authority to take disciplinary action on, or to transfer such employee, and if the competent authority fails to take action within a period of thirty days from the date of such request, the registered society may report the matter to the Registrar for taking such action as he may deem necessary” The aforesaid provisions make it abundantly clear that the “service conditions” means including disciplinary proceedings like suspension, enquiry, punishment etc. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the G.O.Ms.No.68 is issued not only for qualification, appointment, reservation in appointment, inter se seniority, promotion, pay, but also disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the G.O.Ms.No.68 is issued not only for qualification, appointment, reservation in appointment, inter se seniority, promotion, pay, but also disciplinary proceedings. The Hon’ble Division Bench has not taken into account the relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.68 where it says “The rules and regulations stipulated to TNCS Act and Rules are applicable to Grade A and B officers.”. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the G.O.Ms.No.68 states not only promotion etc. but also disciplinary proceedings. 12. Having held that the G.O.Ms.No.68 deals with disciplinary proceedings, now it has to be considered who is the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings. 75(4)(a) deals with disciplinary proceedings and the provision states that “the registered society under which an employee borne on a common cadre of service is employed may request the competent authority to take disciplinary action on, or to transfer such employee”. In such circumstances the Chief Executive of Aringar Anna Sugar Mills ought to request the Cadre Authority i.e. Commissioner of Sugars to initiate disciplinary proceedings. In the present case, the Chief Executive has initiated the proceedings and hence the disciplinary proceeding is without jurisdiction. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated without any jurisdiction and hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The petitioner is still having service for 6 more years. Hence, this Court directs the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and with backwages. The order shall be implemented within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.