Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent in A.No.370/2009 dated 25.11.2009. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was originally appointed as Junior Assistant in the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrates Court, Neyveli, in the year 1996. After completion of two years satisfactory service, on 12.9.1998, his services were regularised with effect from 10.9.1996. He was promoted as Assistant in the District Munsifs Court, Cuddalore, and thereafter transferred to Sub Court, Panruti, and thereafter to the Fast Track Court, Cuddalore. Then, he was promoted as Head Clerk to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore, where he has been working from 1.9.2009 onwards. While the matter stood thus, a show cause notice was issued on 11.8.2009, by the third respondent stating that some of the case records namely the written statement of the second defendant in O.S.No.79 of 2007 pending on the file of that Court, was actually found missing. He gave a reply on 20.8.2009, and thereafter, he was under the impression that the proceedings have been dropped. The third respondent has actually promoted the juniors and on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him, has not given promotion to the petitioner. 4. The only contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that following the show cause notice issued on 11.8.2009, and the explanation tendered by him on 20.8.2009, the charges were not framed; that in the meanwhile, his juniors were promoted, but, charges have been framed at a later point of time i.e., on 30.10.2009; that since no 17(b) charges were pending at that time of promotion, he is entitled for promotion, and hence it should be considered; but, on the contrary, the second respondent has passed an order rejecting his representation on the said ground, and under the circumstances, it has got to be quashed. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel and looking into the materials available, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where the order made by the second respondent District Judge could be quashed. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel and looking into the materials available, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where the order made by the second respondent District Judge could be quashed. It is not in controversy that after the show cause notice was issued on 11.8.2009, he tendered his explanation on 20.8.2009. Promotion was given to the other individuals working in the Court pursuant to the orders passed by the third respondent. But, it was not done in respect of the petitioner herein. It is not in controversy that 17(b) charges have been framed against him pursuant to the memo given on 11.8.2009, and it is also pending enquiry. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where either the order of the learned District Judge could be quashed or promotion could be ordered. After the enquiry is over, if he is not found fault with, then there cannot be any impediment for giving him promotion, and hence it would be fit and proper to issue a direction for the disposal of the disciplinary proceedings pending pursuant to the charges framed already against the petitioner herein as expeditiously as possible. If he is not found guilty of the charges framed against him, there cannot be any impediment for the District Judge to consider his promotion as one expected in law. 6. Accordingly, a direction is issued and this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.