THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12340 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is working as Constable in the CISF, and is attached to the unit of BHEL. On 9.3.2008, he was posted at Towers 3 and 4, between 2100 hours and 0500 hours on the next day. A theft is said to have taken place in the Nickel Store of BHEL. Investigation by the police is said to have revealed that the petitioner has also colluded with the accused, in committing theft. The 1st respondent issued a charge memo, dated 22.4.2008, framing various charges against the petitioner, and requiring him to submit explanation. On his part, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 9.5.2008, with a prayer to furnish copies of 27 documents. On the same day, the 1st respondent rejected the application, stating that they are all irrelevant for the enquiry. The petitioner challenges the very charge memo, on the ground that the enquiry cannot be proceeded with, as long as the criminal case is pending. Another grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid subsistence allowance. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents. The petitioner is not able to point out any jurisdictional, or legal defect, in the charge memo. Though the petitioner is said to have been arrayed as an accused in the criminal case, the purport of the disciplinary proceedings is totally different. Hardly there exists any overlapping between the two sets of proceedings. Secondly, the documents that are demanded by the petitioner are unconcerned with the charges framed against him. For instance, one of the allegations against the petitioner is that he was found unauthorisedly, near Block No.204, though his duty was at Towers 3 and 4. None of the documents mentioned in the representation of the petitioner having anything to do with the said allegation. So is the case with the other charges. Hence, this court is not inclined to interfere with the matter, particularly at this stage. So far as the grievance of the petitioner, as to non-payment of subsistence allowance, is concerned, learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that the petitioner did not file Non-employment certificate, as required under the law. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that as and when the petitioner fulfills the conditions for payment of subsistence allowance, the respondents shall release the same. The petitioner is granted one week time from today, to submit the explanation. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 16th June 2008 PAN