Judgment :- The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings dated 110. 2007 in letter No.6634/Tr.II/2007-10 of the first respondent, quash the same and direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service benefits. 2. At the outset, I would like to point out that the second part of the prayer for reinstatement is misconceived as the question of reinstatement does not arise at all since the petitioner is in service. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade-II in the year 1985 as a direct recruit through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and he was promoted as Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade-I in the year 1991 and presently he is holding the said post in the Regional Transport Office, Chennai (North). Petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 110. 2007 alleging that without verifying the genuineness of the documents produced for registration of six imported vehicles, petitioner accepted the fabricated documents produced by the Importer and registered the vehicles, which resulted in loss of revenue to the Government to the tune to Rs.32,252/-by way of Life Time Tax, for lesser value than the actual value. The statement of charges and the statement of allegations are contained in Annexure I & II, which read as follows: "Annexure-I Statement of charges framed against Thiru R.Ramachandran, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade-I, Regional Transport Officer, Chennai (North) When you were working as Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade-I, Regional Transport Officer, Chennai (North), Chennai - 39 during February-2006, you committed the following irregularities. CHARGE: As per Circular No.1/79 of the Transport Commissioner, Chennai, the records produced for registration of foreign vehicles should be verified for genuineness and whether all the records prescribed under rule 47 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules are produced. You have inspected the following illegally imported six second hand vehicles and accepted fabricated documents without proper scrutiny of the registration papers, inspected the vehicles and also certified in Form-20, which is against the statutory requirement under rule-47 of CMV Rules, 1989 and instructions issued by the Transport Commissioner in Circular 1/79. 1. TN 05/R.1255 2. TN 05/R.2703 3. TN 05/R.3600 4. TN 05/R.4153 5. TN 05/R.7816 6. 1. TN 05/R.1255 2. TN 05/R.2703 3. TN 05/R.3600 4. TN 05/R.4153 5. TN 05/R.7816 6. TN 05/R.8989 You are the competent authority to inspect the vehicle and grant registration as contemplated under sec.44 of M.V. Act, 1988 and solely responsible for the registration of vehicles mentioned in charge-I. You had accepted the fabricated documents produced by the importer without proper verification. Thus your action has resulted in loss of revenue to the effect of Rs.32,252/-to the Government exchequer by way of Life Time Tax assessed based o fabricated documents for lesser value than the actual valud of the cars. Thus you have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 20(1) and (2) of the TNCS (D&A) Rules, 1973, and thus conducted yourself in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant. ANNEXURE - II Statement of allegations namely imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the charges framed against Thiru R.Ramachandran, Motor Vehicles Inspector (Non-Technical), Grade-I, Regional Transport Office, Chennai (North) That the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai-17 has informed in their letter that six second hand cars illegally imported by one M/s. Sri Vijayalakshmi Auto Centre and others were registered in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Chennai (north), in the name of the importer and other companies with forged documents. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai-17 has clearly stated that the illegally imported vehicles were fraudulently registered by submitting the fabricated documents. An application for registration of Motor vehicles should be made in form No.20 of the CMV Rules, 1989, and has to be accompanied by the documents prescribed under rule 47(1)(a) to (i) of CMV Rule, 1989. In the case of imported vehicles, customs clearance certificate along with the license and bonds, if any shall be enclosed. Further, the Regional Transport Officers have been given instructions that they should themselves make such enquiries as they may deem necessary before they approve the re-registration of imported vehicle wherever there is a reasonable suspicion, as per circular 1/79. If you were careful enough to verify the genuineness of the documents produced by the importers while applying for registration of the illegally imported cars would not have been registered and the registration certificates of the six vehicles would not have been issued. If you were careful enough to verify the genuineness of the documents produced by the importers while applying for registration of the illegally imported cars would not have been registered and the registration certificates of the six vehicles would not have been issued. Failure on your part of non scrutinizing the documents properly as per Motor Vehicles Act, Rules and Circular instructions you have caused loss of revenue to the Government Exchequer to the tune of Rs.32,252/-in collection of Life Time Tax assessed for lesser value than the actual value of the cars. Hence the charges as found in Annexure-I are framed against you." The said charge memo is sought to be quashed in this writ petition by contending that the statement of allegations even if accepted to be true, does not make out any misconduct and there is discrimination in treating the charged officials. The fabricated documents appear like original documents and therefore the petitioner cannot be expected to be an expert in identifying the fabricated documents and the proceedings initiated separately against the petitioner is contrary to G.O(D)No.1235 Home Department, dated 112. 2000. Petitioner also contended that quoting of wrong provision in the charge memo shows the non-application of mind by the authority concerned. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned charge memo. 4. Admittedly no jurisdictional issue with regard to the competency of the person, who framed the charge memo is raised. Whether the misconduct alleged on the petitioner is made out or not will be known only when the petitioner submits his explanation and after conducting enquiry, if the explanation is not found satisfactory. 5. From the typed set of papers it is seen that after receipt of the charge memo on 11. 2007, petitioner sought for the documents which were relied on in the charge memo. Petitioner also stated that after receiving the said documents, he will submit his written submissions. He had opted to have both oral enquiry and personal hearing. The said submission of the petitioner is found in his representation dated 11. 2007, which finds a place at page 30 of the typed set of papers. 6. Petitioner appears to have violated circular No.1/79, dated 1. 1979, which is the basis for issuing the impugned charge memo. He had opted to have both oral enquiry and personal hearing. The said submission of the petitioner is found in his representation dated 11. 2007, which finds a place at page 30 of the typed set of papers. 6. Petitioner appears to have violated circular No.1/79, dated 1. 1979, which is the basis for issuing the impugned charge memo. In the said circular it is stated that it is the duty of the Registering Authority to take all possible steps to verify the genuineness of such applications for registration, especially when all the applications are brought together for registration, for change of address, for issuing No Objection Certificate, etc. All the Registering Authorities in the State were therefore instructed to ensure the genuineness of such documents, especially in regard to the imported cars produced before the Registering authorities at the time of applying for registration, etc. so that the smuggled car could be prevented from getting registered. It is further stated that the Regional Transport Officers shall personally verify the documents with original documents and should themselves make such enquiries as may be deemed necessary before they approve the re-registration of imported vehicles, wherever there is reasonable suspicion. Hence a duty is cast upon the petitioner, who is the Regional Transport Officer, to verify the genuineness of the documents produced. 7. From the records, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence found that the petitioner has failed in not scrutinising the documents properly as per the Motor Vehicles Act, Rules, Circulars and instructions, which has caused loss of revenue to the Government exchequer. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that common proceedings were initiated against one Shanmugasundaram, a copy of which was not given to the petitioner can be answered by directing the respondents to furnish a copy of the same. The further contention that wrong provision of law is quoted in the impugned charge memo viz., Rule 20(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules are contravened, though to a certain extent is correct. However, from the reading of the allegations it is beyond doubt that the rule violated is Rule 20(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, and not the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1973, as referred in the impugned charge memo, which appears to be a typographical error. However, from the reading of the allegations it is beyond doubt that the rule violated is Rule 20(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, and not the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1973, as referred in the impugned charge memo, which appears to be a typographical error. Hence though the Rule 20(1) and (2) is correctly mentioned, instead of typing Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, it is wrongly typed as Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1973. Wrong quoting of name of the Rule has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. 9. Hence I am of the view that the impugned charge memo cannot be quashed at the threshold. The petitioner can very well submit his explanation for the allegations levelled against him. The scope of interference at the charge memo level is admittedly very limited as held by the Supreme Court in the following decisions: (a) The scope of interference in charge sheet at show cause stage is well settled in the decision reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 (Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana), wherein in paragraphs 13 to 16, the Supreme Court held thus, "13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh ( (1996)1 SCC 327 ), Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse ( (2004)3 SCC 440 ), Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore ( (2001)10 SCC 639 ), State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma ( (1987) 2 SCC 179 ), etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter." (b) In the decision reported in (2000) 5 SCC 467 (Air India Ltd. v. M. Yogeshwar Raj), in paragraph 8, the Supreme Court held as follows: "8. It appears from a copy of the writ petition that the respondent has not questioned the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority to issue the impugned show-cause notice. The two issues of the respondent’s caste and whether he had adequately explained the production of the bogus certificate of 4-2-1998 are yet to be decided by the disciplinary authority. Both the issues are primarily issues of fact. The High Court should not have pre-empted a factual decision of the disciplinary authority on the issues . Nor should the High Court have stayed the proceedings on a prima facie finding on the subject-matter of inquiry particularly when the competence of the disciplinary authority was not in doubt." 10. In view of the above decisions, I am of the firm view that no case is made out for interference in the impugned charge memo and the writ petition is dismissed in limine. Any observation made in this order shall not stand in the way of the petitioner in defending the charges in any manner in the disciplinary proceeding.