THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.5731 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as an Officer in the Saptagiri Grameena Bank, the 1st respondent herein. Through proceedings dated 09-05-2007, the 1st respondent called for the explanation of the petitioner, on certain allegations. On consideration of the same, he issued charge-sheet dated 22-12-2007. After the enquiry was conducted, the 1st respondent imposed the major punishment of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect, through order dated 22-08-2008. That was confirmed by the Board of Directors. It is stated that on 01-03-2010, the 1st respondent issued another charge-sheet, alleging inter alia that the petitioner has drawn excess T.A bills. On receiving the charge memo, the petitioner has remitted a sum of Rs.2,806/-, and has submitted an explanation. The grievance of the petitioner is that without giving any finality to the matter, the 1st respondent issued a charge memo dated 17-05-2010, virtually repeating the charges, that were framed earlier. The challenged the memo. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A charge memo can be interfered by this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if only it is issued by an authority not vested with the power. The petitioner does not dispute the competence of the 1st respondent to issue the charge memo. In case any of the charges in the impugned charge memo were the subject-matter of earlier proceedings, the petitioner can certainly bring the same to the notice of the 1st respondent, and there is no reason to believe that a dispassionate consideration would not be undertaken by him. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to submit explanation to the impugned charge memo, if not already submitted. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15-09-2011. KO