THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.15469 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the charge sheet, dated 07.04.2011, issued by the respondents showing the role of petitioner in the Articles, as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same as it is contrary to the procedure contemplated under the Procedural Office Order No.1 of 2011, dated 27.01.2011, and further, direct the respondents to treat the petitioner on duty, as the suspension order, dated 03.03.2011, is not revoked within 90 days i.e., by 01.06.2011 as per the procedure contemplated under Rule 10 (7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, (for short, “the Rules”) by paying full pay and all the service benefits thereon. 2. The averments in the Writ Petition, in brief, may be stated as follows: The petitioner was employed in Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Hyderabad, as Upper Division Clerk for the past 27 years. While he was working in Hyderabad Office, the first respondent suspended him along with seven others, when Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees, who number around 70, were on strike from 17.07.2007 in protest against the violation of agreement, dated 31.01.2006, entered into between the Coal Mines Provident Fund Employees Union and Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization with regard to the shifting of the office from Hyderabad to Godavarikhani. The petitioner and six others, who include the then General Secretary of the Union, were placed under suspension with effect from 05.10.2007 with malafide intention to terrorize the whole lot of the office apart from picking up selectively the petitioner and six others. Six out of seven suspended employees approached this Court by way of W.P.No.5109 of 2008 questioning the non-payment of Subsistence Allowance as required to be paid under Fundamental Rule 53, which was allowed and ordered for payment of Subsistence Allowance. The order, dated 09.04.2008, was assailed by the first respondent on the ground that the petitioners therein did not challenge the suspension order. Thereupon, the petitioners therein obtained permission of this Court to withdraw the said Writ Petition and file fresh Writ Petition challenging the suspension order. Thus, W.P.No.14015 of 2008 was filed challenging the suspension order, dated 05.10.2007. This Court allowed W.P.No.14015 of 2008 and directed the first respondent to pay Subsistence Allowance for 90 days from 05.10.2007 and thereafter, full pay and allowances on their reporting at Godavarikhani office. The petitioner along with five others reported at Godavarikhani office on 15.09.2008 in compliance of the order of this Court, dated 04.09.2008. In the meanwhile, the first respondent issued a charge sheet and held inquiry on the charge of going on ‘unlawful strike’ and without giving any report by the Inquiry Officer, the first respondent dismissed five employees apart from the petitioner. In the final order passed on 19.03.2009, the first respondent made several fresh charges on which neither a Memo was given nor any inquiry was held. This final dismissal order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.7487 of 2009 along with three others and this Court vide order, dated 09.04.2009, suspended the operation of the dismissal order in W.P.MP.No.9833 of 2009. The respondents did not implement this interim order and they prevented the petitioner and three others from entering the office by closing the main gate. Later, vide Notice, dated 14.10.2009, petitioner and three others were declared as “Persona Non Grata” and threatened all employees in the Notice that if anyone keeps contacts with the petitioner and three others, disciplinary action will be taken. The petitioners in W.P.No.7487 of 2009 filed Contempt Case No.704 of 2009 against the respondents for non- compliance of the interim order of this Court, dated 09.04.2009. While the Contempt Case was under hearing, this Court vide order, dated 29.10.2009, set aside the dismissal order dated 19.03.2009 and restored the petitioners therein to service while giving liberty to the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law laid down under Rule 15 (2) of the Rules according to which a copy of the Inquiry Officer’s Report has to be given to the petitioner and seek a representation before passing final orders on the inquiry held. The first respondent did not comply with the direction of this Court given in W.P.No.7487 of 2009, which was disposed of on 29.10.2009, and confirmed in W.A.No.1316 of 2009, dated 18.11.2009. The first respondent, while the things stood thus, issued another charge sheet, dated 26.02.2010, levelling the same charges contained in the dismissal order, dated 19.03.2009, in gross violation of this Court’s order. The petitioner and three others challenged the charge memo, dated 26.02.2010, in W.P.No.7354 of 2010 and this Court was pleased to suspended further proceedings in the charge memo, dated 26.02.2010, by order dated 01.04.2010. During the petitioner’s 23 years service up to 2006, he did not work in the Sections handling the inclines except M.K.4 mentioned in the suspension order and the question of settlement of House Building Advance Claim resulting in wrongful payment is an invention of the respondents for their ulterior and malafide design to somehow implicate the petitioner to take vengeance. The respondents are in possession of the original Records since more than six years after finalization and approval of audit reports. The petitioner having not been associated with the inclines mentioned in the suspension order, the question of committing any misconduct by the petitioner does not arise and in the absence of misconduct, any Authority cannot invoke the provisions of the Rules. The petitioner under the provisions of Right to Information Act received information from A.G. Office, Hyderabad, dated 12.11.2008, informing that they conducted audit for the years 2000 to 2006, and CP 10/Regional commissioner of CMPFO by letter, dated 01.02.2011, furnished the minutes of Board of Trustees meeting held on 18.03.2010, wherein it is clear under heading “Decision” that BOT confirmed approval of Annual Accounts even for the year 2007 – 2008 and stated that there is no defect in the accounts; that it has been duly clarified, accepted and approved by the Auditors and BOT for the years mentioned in the suspension order; that the allegation is nothing but an act of vengeance and to create trouble to the employee who is questioning the illegal acts of the respondents; that he had not passed any advances contrary to the record available and furnished to him; that the sanction will be made on being scrutinized by three higher officials; and that the final sanction will be made either by the Assistant Commissioner or Regional commissioner. Thereafter, a suspension order was passed against the petitioner on 03.03.2011, which is valid for a period of 90 days. On 07.04.2011, the respondents issued a Memorandum levelling charges against the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the Procedural Office Order No.1 of 2011, the CMPF Advance Sanctioning Authority shall be held primarily responsible for the compliance with the procedure as laid down in the said order and therefore, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. 4. Heard Sri P.A.V.V.S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. There cannot be any doubt that at the initial stage of enquiry, the Court has to prima facie see whether the uncontroverted allegations in the charge sheet levelled against an employee made out a prima facie misconduct. Unless the prima facie misconduct is made out, the question of quashing the charge sheet does not arise. At this stage, the correctness or otherwise of those allegations cannot be tested or weighed, exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as a matter of fact, superior officials of the petitioner are held responsible as per the orders issued in proceedings dated 27.01.2011 and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the charges. The charges levelled against the petitioner are viz., (1) In the year 2004 – 2005, he has involved in the commission of gross financial irregularity with ulterior motive in processing and settlement of six House Building Advance (HBA) claims. (2) In the same year, he resorted to procedural manipulation and tampering of Records (“CMPF Ledger Cards”) in respect of six members. (3) In the years 2004 – 2005 and 2005 – 2006, he intentionally indulged in processing and settlement of fake and forged House Building Advance Claim in respect of Kalakota Odelu, Bandari Ellaiah, Adepu Vidya Sagar, Regula Ravamallu, N. Vykuntaam and P. Rajamouli. Therefore, as seen from these allegations in the charge sheet, Articles of charges, which are framed against the petitioner, are serious in nature. The financial irregularities are relating to the year 2004 - 2005, 2005 – 2006 and 2006 – 2007. So, the Procedural Office Order No.1 of 2011, dated 27.01.2011 has no application to the Articles of charges framed against the petitioner in respect of misconduct and they are alleged to have been committed long prior to the issuance of the present Procedural Office Order. So, prima facie the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, which relate to tampering of records, creation of fake and forged House Building Advance Claims, and processing, manipulation and tampering of records. In view of these serious allegations, which show a serious misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the charge sheet is not liable to be quashed. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 09, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.15469 OF 2011 Between: P.L. Prasanna Kumar .....PETITIONER AND Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.15469 OF 2011 June 09, 2011