Judgment :- M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. Invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Mohideen Pitchai, a Judicial Officer in the cadre of the District Judge functioning at Trichirappalli, has brought forth this writ petition with the following prayer:- "to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in his proceedings ROC.433/2009/RG-B2 dated 9.2.2010 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction." 2. The Court heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also looked into the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the materials placed in the hands of the Court. 3. It is not in controversy that the petitioner is in judicial service for a long time and on being promoted as District Judge in 2007, he was posted to Fast Track Court, Tiruppur. He is now functioning at Trichirappalli. One Dr. Ahamed Ali, a native of Villupuram, working as medical person in the Middle East, has purchased an immovable property situated in Door No.7A, MMDA Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai and at the time of purchase, the property was in occupation of Mr.Venkatesh. Since the rental income was very poor, the said Dr.Ahamed Ali filed R.C.O.P. No.2045 of 2002, seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds mentioned therein. He also filed R.C.O.P. No.560 of 2004 for fixing the fair rent and the fair rent was fixed at Rs.19,596/-per month by an order dated 3.3.2005. The eviction O.P. was also ordered on the ground of wilful default. 4. While the matter stood thus, the tenant filed O.S. No.4700 of 2004 against the said Dr. Ahmed Ali for the relief of specific performance on the strength of an agreement dated 23.9.1998. The defence plea by Dr. Ahmed Ali was that the said document was a forged one. At the time of trial, the opinion of the fingerprint was called for and the Court also dismissed the suit with a finding that the document on the strength of which suit was filed was a forged one and at the same time, directed the said Dr. Ahmed Ali to refund a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, the receipt of which has been admitted by him as advance. 5. As against the said judgment passed by the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, two appeals have been preferred viz. Ahmed Ali to refund a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, the receipt of which has been admitted by him as advance. 5. As against the said judgment passed by the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, two appeals have been preferred viz. A.S. No.1115 of 2007 at the instance of the tenant and A.S. No.1030 of 2007 at the instance of the owner of the property Dr.Ahamed Ali and both the appeals are pending in the hands of this Court. 6. Pending the same, a complaint was received from the said tenant Venkatesh by the Registrar-Vigilance of this Court alleging that the second Additional Judge, who tried the matter, namely the present petitioner herein and who is in judicial service, was occupying the premises next to each other and due to his influence, a judgment came to be passed in favour of Dr. Ahmed Ali. Following the same, the property now purchased by the Judicial Officer is in the name of his children and it has got to be proved Under such circumstances, this writ petition has been brought forth, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated by the High Court against the petitioner/Judicial Officer. 7. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned senior counsel would submit that in the instant case, the complaint itself was given by Mr. Venkatesh, who was a tenant and who is aggrieved over the litigation, where he was unsuccessful. The decision rendered by the Second Additional Judge in the suit for specific performance was in the year 2006 and that too with a finding that the document was a forged one. Now the appeals have been brought forth. Long after the disposal of that suit, the property has been purchased by the sons of the petitioner, in which the petitioner had no role to pay and all these allegations were false and frivolous. Under such circumstances, there is no basis or prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner. Hence, it is a fit case where charge proceedings have got to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has brought to the notice of this Court that charges have been framed not only against the petitioner but also against the II Additional Judge, who rendered the judgment and the proceedings are pending. 9. Hence, it is a fit case where charge proceedings have got to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has brought to the notice of this Court that charges have been framed not only against the petitioner but also against the II Additional Judge, who rendered the judgment and the proceedings are pending. 9. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and looked into the materials available on record. After doing so, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where the charge proceedings initiated against the petitioner could be quashed. When a complaint is filed before the Registrar-Vigilance and on scrutiny of the explanation tendered by the petitioner herein, the High Court had already taken its view that the explanation given by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and ordered for framing of charges, it would mean that the High Court found that there was a prima facie case to be proceeded with. 10. Under such circumstances, there is no question of quashing the proceedings or the charges would arise. The interest of the judiciary would require that enquiry must be proceeded with. The decision taken in the suit and the pendency of the appeals or all other proceedings are outside the scope of this writ petition. That apart, in order to ensure confidence in the mind of the public and judicial discipline also would warrant that a full fledged enquiry in the matter like this must be allowed to be proceeded with in order to find out the truth or otherwise. It is a case where the relief asked for could not be granted. 11. Since it is represented by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the decision that might be taken in the appeals might have the reflection on the proceedings initiated by the Vigilance, it is fit and proper to make a request to the learned Judge before whom the matter is pending to dispose it of at the earliest. Accordingly, it is made. 12. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P. is also dismissed.