JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the Memos of charges (Charge-sheets) served upon him. 2. The only ground canvassed by the learned counsel is that in absence of preliminary enquiry the disciplinary authority could not have legitimately charge-sheeted the petitioner or formulated statement of allegations. By four different Memos which are being challenged has been informed of the charges against him and his explanation has been asked for and also to state "why disciplinary action should not be taken against him." From the averments made in the petition it does not appear that the petitioner has submitted any explanation to the allegations of charges and it also does not appear that the disciplinary authority has decided to conduct formal/regular departmental enquiry into the charges. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court at the initial stage without waiting for decision of the disciplinary authority even. 3. The charge-sheet dated 6th August, 1997 relates to the proposed enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the CCA Rules), in which four charges of misconduct/delinquency have been stated. These charges relate to the period from April 1, 1992 to August 19, 1993 when petitioner was working as Sub-Registrar, Bassi. A bare perusal of first three charges would go to show that they relate to dereliction of duty and thereby causing huge revenue loss to State Government which runs in lacs of rupees. On the very face, charges are of serious misconduct. 4. Another charge-sheet dated, August 22, 1997 is under Rule 17 of CCA Rules. It also relates to dereliction of duty, while holding the post of Tehsildar, Sanganer, in making recoveries and showing no interest for taking action against those who made encroachment on the Government land. 5. The third charge-sheet dated, 27.8.97 is under Rule 16 and it relates to passing of an illegal order of land conversion which was beyond petitioner's competency and jurisdiction causing revenue loss of Rs.13,725/- to the State Government thereby. 6. The fourth charge-sheet dated, September 24, 1997 is also under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, in which four charges have been levelled against the petitioner which relate to illegal land conversion while holding the post of Tehsildar at Sanganer. 7. 6. The fourth charge-sheet dated, September 24, 1997 is also under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, in which four charges have been levelled against the petitioner which relate to illegal land conversion while holding the post of Tehsildar at Sanganer. 7. All the charges which have been levelled against the petitioner in the above four charge-sheets are precise and definite. None of the charges of the proposed disciplinary enquiries is vague in nature. 8. At the out-set, it may be stated that it is too early to judge the truth and correctness of the charges nor it can be gone into by this Court at this stage and that too, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even when such matters come before this Court after imposition of punishment, it has no jurisdiction to go into the truth of the allegations/ charges except in a case when they are based on no evidence. In other words, it is not the stage when the truth and correctness of the charges can be made a subject matter of judicial scrutiny. 9. In the back ground of these facts, the question is, whether the above four Memorandum of charges could be quashed by this Court on the alleged ground of absence of preliminary enquiry before formulating charges against the petitioner. 10. A preliminary enquiry is only a fact finding enquiry. It is held for the purpose to find out whether a prima-facie case for a formal/regular departmental enquiry is made out. But, a preliminary enquiry should not be confused with a regular departmental enquiry. The preliminary enquiry is not governed by Article 311(2) of the Constitution as it Is intended only for the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority to decide whether a charge-sheet should be formulated or not against a delinquent officer. A preliminary enquiry is usually held ex-parte. Punishment of a Government servant can be inflicted only after holding a regular departmental enquiry and at that stage, a Government servant facing such enquiry gets protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. No legal right of a Government servant is infringed if no preliminary enquiry is held before framing charges against a Government servant. There is no rule of law which provides that in absence of a preliminary enquiry a Memorandum of Charges or a, regular enquiry into the charges against delinquent officer shall stand vitiated. 11. No legal right of a Government servant is infringed if no preliminary enquiry is held before framing charges against a Government servant. There is no rule of law which provides that in absence of a preliminary enquiry a Memorandum of Charges or a, regular enquiry into the charges against delinquent officer shall stand vitiated. 11. Primarily, it is for the disciplinary authority, looking to the nature of allegations, to decide whether a preliminary enquiry should be held or not before framing charges for holding a regular enquiry. Then, the nature of preliminary enquiry depends from case to case. There may be cases where charges are prima-facie made out from documentary evidence requiring no oral evidence for formulating charges. A collection of documents may be a sufficient enquiry in a given case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down that a preliminary inquiry is essential before formulating charges against a delinquent employee. Nor it can be laid down that in absence of a preliminary enquiry the memorandum of charges or a regular departmental enquiry would stand vitiated. Even where a preliminary enquiry is considered necessary by the disciplinary authority in view of vague allegations, no definite formula can be laid down about its nature and the manner in which it should be conducted. It would depend upon case to case and discretion of the disciplinary authority in absence of statutory rule or regulation about it. 12. In the instant case, charges against the petitioner are of the nature which are based mainly on documentary evidence. Collection of relevant documents to formulate precise and definite charges is sufficient. Hence, contention of Shri Rastogi to quash Memorandum of Charges in absence of preliminary enquiry cannot be accepted. Further, there is only a bald statement of the petitioner that no preliminary enquiry has been made. Even, assuming that no preliminary enquiry of recording statements of witnesses has been made in the instant case, the Memorandum of Charges cannot be quashed when prima-facie case for holding a regular enquiry against the petitioner is made out from documentary evidence. 13. Then as stated earlier, the matters are in their early stages. The petitioner has not even filed explanation to the charges. The petitioner can submit his explanation to satisfy the disciplinary authority that no prima-facie case for holding a formal/regular enquiry is made out against him. 13. Then as stated earlier, the matters are in their early stages. The petitioner has not even filed explanation to the charges. The petitioner can submit his explanation to satisfy the disciplinary authority that no prima-facie case for holding a formal/regular enquiry is made out against him. Instead of satisfying disciplinary authority, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing Memorandum of Charges, which cannot be done for the reasons stated above. 14. Consequently, this petition has no merit and it is dismissed summarily.Writ petition dismissed. *******