ORDER : 1. Aggrieved of order dated 09.06.2017 by which the petitioner who was appointed to the post of Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation has been put on “compulsory wait till further orders”, he has approached this Court. 2. Appointment to the post of Commissioner under Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation is regulated in terms of Section 3(c) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948. Petitioner's appointment vide letter dated 16.05.2016 has been approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. This letter has been issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that once the appointment of the petitioner has been approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet which comprises the Prime Minister and the Minister of Home Affairs, it cannot be touched by any other authority. To fortify his contention on this issue, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the First Schedule appended to the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 which provides that normally in cases of disciplinary action where the authority otherwise competent under the relevant rules concludes that the penalty of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction in the rank is justified to be imposed on the holder of a post, appointment to which ordinarily requires approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, the proposal should be submitted before the Prime Minister and the President, whereas in the present case by a stroke of pen from Under Secretary to the Government of India, the petitioner has been put on “compulsory wait till further orders” which in essence amounts to removal from the post. Another contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the post of the Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation is a single post, of which no other person can be given additional charge and, that too, to a person who is wholly incompetent to hold that post. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court, which I shall deal with hereinafter. 3. In “Union of India and Another Vs. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court, which I shall deal with hereinafter. 3. In “Union of India and Another Vs. S.N. Maity and Another” reported in (2015) 4 SCC 164 , the issue which fell for consideration before the Court was whether “appointment on deputation” which was not a simplicitor deputation can be interfered by the employer as if it was a deputation on transfer. In “Union of India and Others Vs. B.V. Gopinath” reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351 , the issue before the Court was whether the competent authority who had approved initiation of the departmental enquiry against the delinquent officer had approved the chargememo or not. Issues before the Court in “Debesh Chandra Das Vs. Union of India” reported in (1969) 2 SCC 158 , “Ashok Kumar Ratilal Patel Vs. Union of India and Another” reported in (2012) 7 SCC 757 , “Sri Justice S. K. Ray Vs. State of Orissa and Others” reported in (2003) 4 SCC 21 and “Subrata Chakravarty Vs. Union of India and Others” [W.P 23462 (W) of 2015 of Calcutta High Court (Appellate Side)] were also entirely different from the issue involved in the present petition. 4. An order of “compulsory wait till further orders” cannot be construed as an order of removal from service. Such an order is not stigmatic. Under para 23(6) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation Scheme, the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner appointed under Section 3C(1) of the Act may at any time, for reasons to be recorded in writing and after he is given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in the manner prescribed for Central Government officers of similar status, be removed by the Central Government. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that before resorting to para 23(6), the impugned order dated 09.06.2017 cannot be issued. On this, suffice would be to record that in the face of serious irregularities which have come to the notice of the Government which have been referred in the order dated 09.06.2017, pending initiation of an action under para 23(6) of the Scheme the most appropriate order which could have been passed against the petitioner was, “compulsory wait till further orders”. Merely because appointment of the petitioner has been approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, other authorities who are otherwise competent to take action are not prohibited from taking action against the petitioner. It is stated that on 12.06.2017 a showcause notice has been issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner has submitted his reply and while so, the competent authority has already resorted to the provision under para 23(6) of the Scheme. The issue relating to jurisdiction of the authority which has issued the impugned order dated 09.06.2017 is answered on a perusal of the letter of appointment dated 16.05.2016 and order dated 09.06.2017 which would disclose that both the orders have been issued by the under Secretary/Deputy Secretary to the Government of India. In fact, order dated 09.06.2017 records that this order has been issued with the approval of the competent authority. The respondent no.4 has been given charge as an adhoc arrangement and while so, no exception can be taken to this. 5. In the above facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 09.06.2017, however, liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit his additional reply to the showcause notice issued to him. The competent authority shall take a decision in the matter, in accordance with law preferably within 15 days from the date of communication of this order. 6. The writ petition stands dismissed. 7. I.A No. 9327 of 2017 filed for amendment/addition in paragraph no. 1 as well as in the prayer portion of the main writ petition stands disposed of.