IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 636 of 2009 Between: B.Prabhakar S/o.B.Rangappa A.Kondapuram Branch, A.Kondapuram, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, rep. by its Chairman, Head Office, P.B.No.65, Kadapa - 516 001. 2 The General Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Head Office, P.B.No.65, Kadapa - 516 001. .....RESPONDENTS 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 any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.37/HRD&IR/CGS/0350/2008 dated 15.12.2008 of the 1st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, biased, malafide and nullify the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been filed by B.Prabhakar assailing the proceedings No.37/HRD&IR/CGS/0350/2008 dated 15.12.2008 issued by the Chairman, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank-1st respondent. The petitioner worked as Branch Manager at Kondapuram (K) Branch from 13.5.2004 to 3.7.2008. The Branch was entrusted with the task of implementation of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme for Rabi 2006-2007 seasons. The Branch Collected insurance premium for Bengal Gram crop during December, 2006. But, the insurance premium was not sent to the Head Office for onward transmission to the Insurance Company. It is the case of the petitioner that due to shortage of staff, the premium amount could not be sent to the Head Office. He approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the charge sheet issued against him vide proceedings dated 15.12.2008. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to shortage of staff, the premium amount has not been remitted to the Head Office by the petitioner. The learned counsel refers a letter dated 1.10.2007 which is emanating from Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank in support of his submission. A charge sheet came to be issued against the petitioner on 15.12.2008. The Articles of charge framed against him are as hereunder: “ That you were working as Manager at our Kondapuram (K) Branch from 13.5.2004 to 3.7.2008 and while functioning in your capacity as such the following circumstances appear against you. You have failed to remit the crop insurance premium amount collected from non loanee farmers for Rabi 2006-2007, along with necessary information, within the stipulated time, as prescribed by Head Office vide circular No.123-2006-BC-CD dated 13.11.2006, due to which the claim was rejected by the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd, stating as delayed submission and now the Bank is liable to pay the claims amounting to Rs.33,29,095.80. Thus you have displayed gross indolence/negligence in discharging your duties and also violated the guidelines issued by Bank vide circular No.123-2006-BC-CD dated 13.11.2006 and in the process caused financial loss of Rs.33,29,095.80 to the Bank. The details are more fully described in Statement of Imputation of Misconduct in this charge sheet. By your above acts, you had failed to conform and abide by the rules and regulations of the Bank and contravened Regulation Nos.17 read with Regulation NO.38 of Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2006. We, therefore, charge you for breach of above regulations under Regulation NO.38 (I) of Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2006.” The plea of the petitioners that delay occurred in remitting the insurance premium due to shortage of staff is required to be examined by the enquiry officer. It is not within the purview of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain documents have not been furnished or enclosed to the charge sheet and thereby, the petitioner is not able to submit the written statement. Such is the situation, the petitioner has to make a representation to the respondents within a period of 10 days to furnish copies of documents and thereupon, the respondents are under obligation to furnish the necessary documents before calling upon the petitioner to put on his written statement to the impugned charge memo. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. _________ 22-1-2009 rkk