THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.26660 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force at Guntakal. The Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, Secunderabad, the 4th respondent herein, issued memorandum, dated 13.10.2010, framing charges against the petitioner. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition, on several grounds. The petitioner contends that on the information furnished by him to the CBI, a trap was laid against a Sub-Inspector, by name V.D.Raju and ever since then, vindictive action was initiated against him. He states that, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on frivolous charges, and an order of reversion passed against him is the subject matter of W.P.No.25328 of 2010, before this Court. He submits that the charges contained in the impugned memorandum are in the same sequence, and there is lack of bona fides in framing them. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that the allegations contained in the impugned charge memo, are totally unconnected with the trap laid against the Sub-Inspector. It is stated that when some other complaint was submitted by the petitioner, it was enquired into and found that the complaint was made without basis, and the charges are framed with reference to the relevant rules. Heard Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri D.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. It is in very rare cases that this Court would interfere with the show cause notices, or charge sheets. Unless the charge sheet is issued by an authority not conferred with the power, or the charges themselves are patently untenable, this Court would not interfere with the same. The petitioner is under the impression that the impugned charge sheet is issued in relation to certain matters, forming part of the trap laid against Sri V.D.Raju. A perusal of the same discloses that it is totally independent. The question as to whether the petitioner is guilty of the charges framed against him, needs to be considered in the departmental enquiry that may be conducted after the petitioner submits his explanation. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of two weeks from today. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.06.12.2010. Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (B/o) GJ