Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (for short "the Organization") was created to cater to the needs of the employees working in the Coal Mines. Regional offices of the organization are established at different parts of the country. One regional office was established at Ramavaram of Karimnagar District, in the year 1963. It was shifted to Hyderabad, in 1973, on the basis of the decision taken by the Board of Trustees of the organization. After about 21/2 decades, the Board of Trustees, at their meeting held on 23.3.1999, decided to shift the regional office, from Hyderabad to Godavarikhani, and a consequential office order was issued by the competent authority, on 7.12.2000. 75 employees, who were working in the regional office at Hyderabad, filed W.P.No.25340 of 2000, challenging the steps taken by the organization, to shift its regional office from Hyderabad to Godavarikhani. The writ petition was dismissed on 5.4.2004. Writ Appeal No.798 of 2004, filed against it, was dismissed. SLP filed before the Supreme Court is also said to have been dismissed.

Dissentions persisted over the shifting of the office. It is stated that the union of the employees went on strike and after 39 days of strike, the conciliation machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act is stated to have been set in motion. An agreement is said to have been signed on 31.01.2006, between the representative of the regional office, and the employees union, before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central). It is also stated that after certain meetings of conciliation, the Assistant Labour Commissioner issued proceedings dated 15.6.2007, under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "the Act"), directing the parties to maintain status quo.

The Commissioner of the organization, the 1st respondent herein, passed an order dated 5.10.2007, placing the petitioners herein under suspension. The petitioners earlier approached this court, by filing W.P.No.5109 of 2008, complaining that they are not being paid subsistence allowance. They pleaded that the orders of suspension were not served upon them. The plea raised by the respondents was that apart from being placed under suspension, the petitioners were transferred to the Regional Offices, at New Delhi, Nagpur, Jabalpur, etc, and that they have to collect subsistence allowance, at the relevant place. The writ petition was disposed of through an order dated 9.4.2008, directing that the respondents shall pay subsistence allowance, together with accrued arrears, as and when the petitioners approach the Regional Office at Godavarikhani.

Respondents filed writ appeal, against the order in W.P.No.5109 of 2008. An objection was raised to the effect that the petitioners cannot claim subsistence allowance, unless the order of suspension is challenged, and in that view of the matter, the petitioners have withdrawn the writ petition, and filed this writ petition, challenging the order of suspension.

The petitioners contend that having passed an order of suspension dated 5.10.2007, the 1st respondent did not serve the copies thereof on them, and it is only at a later point of time, that the copies are made available to them. They contend that the suspension was untenable, in view of the orders passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, in exercise of power under Section 33 of the Act. It is also pleaded that the transfer of the petitioners to very far off places, even while suspending them, is a malafide exercise of power. Another contention raised by the petitioners is that the suspension was not reviewed, as provided for under rule 10(7) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short "the Rules"). Certain other grounds also urged.

On behalf of respondents, counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit are filed. The order of suspension and transfer is sought to be justified, on the ground that the petitioners have resorted to serious acts of indisciplin