JUDGMENT Cyriac Joseph C.J. (Oral) This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 13-6-2006 in Writ Petition No. 5997 of 2006 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ Petition. 2. The challenge in the writ petition was against an order passed by the Enquiry Officer in a disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The learned Single Judge noted that the enquiry proceedings were at the stage of arguments and took the view that it would not be proper to interfere with the enquiry proceedings at that stage and that the petitioner should raise an industrial dispute before the Labour Court after the decision is taken by the employer on culmination of the disciplinary proceedings. 3. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Learned Single Judge. It is neither proper nor desirable for the High Court to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India to interfere with any or every decision taken by an Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings. Such interference will only delay the enquiry proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings and result in miscarriage of justice. Even if any order passed or decision taken by the Enquiry Officer is wrong or illegal and is capable of vitiating the report of the enquiry or the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, the aggrieved party should wait till the disciplinary proceedings are completed and challenge the final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings before the appropriate forum. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to exercise her discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in G. V. Aswathanarayana Vs. Central Bank of India, by Chairman, Bombay and Others, ILR 2003 KAR 3066, wherein the Court held that the delinquent employee is entitled to receive copies of relevant documents and that refusal of the Disciplinary Authority/Enquiry Officer to furnish the documents requisitioned and sought by the delinquent has resulted in prejudice. Central Bank of India, by Chairman, Bombay and Others, ILR 2003 KAR 3066, wherein the Court held that the delinquent employee is entitled to receive copies of relevant documents and that refusal of the Disciplinary Authority/Enquiry Officer to furnish the documents requisitioned and sought by the delinquent has resulted in prejudice. However, even in the case relied upon by the Learned Counsel, the matter came before the Court after the disciplinary proceedings were completed and a decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority and even the appeal filed by the delinquent employee was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Hence the above mentioned judgment cannot be an authority for contending that the learned Single Judge was wrong in not interfering in the midst of the enquiry proceedings. 5. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the writ appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.