IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 15076 of 2009 Between: L.V.V.S.Ramana Rao S/o.Ramachandra Rao Sri Durga Malleswara Swamyvari Temple,Vijayawada R/o.Flat No.401, Ramapriya Residency, Boyapati Madhavarao street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada ..... PETITIONER AND Sri Durga Malleswara Swamyvari Temple, Vijayawada rep.by its Executive officer .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the charge Memo issued by the respondents in Rc.No.A3/4938/2006 dated 29.1.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, and against rule 19(2)(a) of the APCS(CCA) Rules, 1963. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: V.T.M.PRASAD,SC FOR ENDOWNMENTS The Court at the stage of admission made the following O R D E R: This Writ Petition is directed against a charge memo dated 29th January 2009 calling for the explanation of the writ petitioner, who is working as a Personal Assistant to the Executive Officer of the respondent Devasthanam, as to why disciplinary action be not initiated against him for his alleged involvement behind the five allegations thrown against him. The charge memo is a show cause notice, calling upon the writ petitioner to offer his explanation to five distinct and different imputations. If the writ petitioner offers a satisfactory explanation, the same is bound to be taken into consideration and account and if it is bona fide and convincing, further action could possibly be dropped. In the event the explanation offered is found not satisfactory, the procedure prescribed under the Discipline and Control Rules applicable to the persons occupying his status would be followed. Against a charge memo, seldom the Court would exercise its jurisdiction to judicially review the same until and unless it is demonstrated that (1) the authority, who passed that order, lacks jurisdiction; (2) there are no bona fides behind the allegations, which form the imputations; (3) it is otherwise not sustainable in accordance with any settled principle, such as trying to conduct an enquiry into an already concluded matter, etcetera. In the absence of any of these factors, the attempt made by the writ petitioner to demonstrate that he is not guilty of the allegations levelled against him, to be appreciated by this Court, cannot be a ground or a basis for interfering with the proposed disciplinary action. The writ petition is, therefore, premature and is dismissed at the stage of admission without costs. If the enquiry into the charge memo has not yet been commenced or concluded, the respondent would do well to ensure that the same is completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate before 31st December 2009. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 28th July 2009 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}