THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 28784 OF 2009 Dated: 05-03-2010 Between: B. Loka Reddy ... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, Police Line, Hirapur, Dhanabad-826 001 and another ... RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 28784 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk in the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, has filed this writ petition questioning order dated 11-2-2009 passed in letter No. CMPFO/120/HYD/BL/SCCL/Vig./1237 through which he was placed under suspension in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 10 (2) (a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short ‘the Rules’). The aforesaid order was passed quoting Rule 10 (2) (a) of the Rules, but afterwards a corrigendum dated 08-01-2010 is issued correcting the Rule as 10 (1) (b) instead of Rule 10 (2) (a) as mentioned in the impugned order. Rule 10 (1) (b) of the Rules empowers the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, to place a government servant under suspension, where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that a case was registered against one J.V. Venkateswarlu, Upper Division Clerk and in connection with the investigation against the said person, he was interrogated. It is his further case that the respondents have passed the impugned order without examining his case in proper perspective since no case is registered against him. This Court by order dated 30-10-2009 issued notice before admission. In response to the same, a counter affidavit is filed by the Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, the 1st respondent herein, wherein while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that there was a complaint from the Branch Manager of the Public Sector Bank, having its office at Bhupalpalli, Warangal District. Based on the same, the then Commissioner of the Coal Mines Organisation had detected fraudulent payments made to a tune of Rs.1.5 Crores in disbursement of CMPF advance and refund cases made from Regional Office, Hyderabad during the year 2006. It is stated that initially a case was registered against one Sri J.V. Venkateswarlu and during investigation, it was noticed that the petitioner was the concerned dealing Assistant and was also responsible for processing of settlement of CMPF advance and refund cases in which fraudulent payments had occurred. It is also stated that after thorough enquiry and detailed interrogation of the petitioner, the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Hyderabad had registered F.I.R bearing No.RC 15 (A)/2007 filed by the Chief Vigilance Officer, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation, Head Quarters and subsequently, a regular crime was also registered in RCHYD2007A0015 against him. It is further stated that the employer of the petitioner was addressed seeking sanction for prosecuting him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the impugned order was passed in exercise of the power under Rule 10 (2) (a) of the Rules, as such, the same is not applicable. It is further submitted that there is no power under the Rules for issuance of corrigendum correcting the rule as 10 (1) (b) instead of Rule 10 (2) (a) as mentioned in the impugned order dated 11-12-2009. While in the impugned order the respondents have mentioned the Rule as 10 (2) (a), but in view of corrigendum issued by the respondents, the suspension order reads as if issued in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 10 (1) (b) of the Rules. A perusal of the said Rule makes it clear that the respondents are empowered to place the petitioner under suspension in case a criminal case is registered against him and it is under investigation. Though it is the case of the petitioner that no case is registered against him, but from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that initially a case was registered against one J.V. Vekateswarlu but subsequently having noticed the involvement of the petitioner the case is registered against him. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that no case is registered against the petitioner. Though the respondents have misquoted the rule, but that itself is not a ground to interfere with the impugned order in view of the power conferred on the respondents to place an employee under suspension when a criminal case is registered and is under investigation. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition to grant the relief as prayed for in the writ petition and interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 05-03-2010 ks