HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25332 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner worked as a Head Constable in the Railway Protection Force. A charge sheet dated 30.3.2010 was served upon him alleging that he failed to report the factum of his having been arrested in connection with a Crime under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and that he has violated Rule 21(2) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 by resorting to bigamy. In connection with the enquiry, he was issued a notice dated 31.8.2010 directing him to appear before the respondents. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the notice. He contends that the respondents are proposing to conduct enquiry into the Crime under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and two other relevant provisions and that the same is impermissible under law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Pushpinder Kaur, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. In the charge sheet, two alleged acts of mis-conduct are mentioned, viz; that the petitioner failed to report to the respondents the factum of his having been arrested on 31.12.2009 in connection with Crime No. 600 of 2009 of P.S. Malkajgiri and remaining in judicial custody till 4.1.2010; and that he has contacted second marriage even while his first marriage was subsisting. The reference to offences under Section 498-A, 417 and 420 of I.P.C. is only in the context of the discussion of the purport of Crime No. 600 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner is perfectly right when he submits that the respondents cannot undertake enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the allegations relating to offences under Section 498-A of I.P.C. etc. From a reading of the charge sheet, one cannot gather an inference that the respondents proposed to undertake such an enquiry. As mentioned earlier, the purpose of the enquiry is only limited to the alleged misconducts under the relevant Rules. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of making it clear that the enquiry to be undertaken by the respondents shall be with reference to the acts of mis-conduct under the relevant provisions of law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J DATE: 29th October, 2010 Note: Furnish c.c. in three days B/o pnb