Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the charge memo and suspension order dated 18.7.2001. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Trainee Helper on 25.9.1993 in the respondent Electricity Board. The petitioner was directed to produce original school certificates in respect of Date of Birth and educational qualification at the time of his appointment. The petitioner studied upto eighth standard and he produced the school certificate obtained from the Panchayat Union Middle School, Moolaipatti. He was made regular employee in the post of Helper and for the said post, no educational qualification is prescribed. After seven years of service, the respondents issued a charge memo on 18.7.2001 to the petitioner and also suspended him on the very same day for the said reason. Hence, the writ petition is filed challenging the above said proceedings on the ground that the first respondent ought not to have issued the impugned proceedings without any valid report obtained from the District Educational Officer after due enquiry and verification. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings has been issued without any base as there was no educational qualification prescribed for the post of Helper. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned proceedings initiated by the first respondent was without verification of the correct fact. He further submitted that the petitioner is still working in the respondent Board in pursuant to the interim order granted in this writ petition. 4. The challenge in this writ petition is against the impugned order of suspension and the charge memo. Admittedly, the petitioner has not questioned the jurisdiction of the first respondent in issuing the charge memo. on the other hand, he disputes the manner in which it was issued. According to the petitioner, the first respondent ought to have verified the educational qualification of the petitioner before issuing the charge memo. However, the charge against the petitioner is that the educational qualification certificate produced by him is a bogus certificate. Under such circumstances, it is only a charge levelled against the petitioner and he was not found guilty by the respondents. Thus, all the contentions, which are raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, can be raised before the authorities at the time of enquiry. Under such circumstances, it is only a charge levelled against the petitioner and he was not found guilty by the respondents. Thus, all the contentions, which are raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, can be raised before the authorities at the time of enquiry. It is also made clear that the petitioner is entitled to place any other supporting document in his favour before the enquiry officer to substantiate his contentions. As the writ petition is filed only against the charge memo, I am of the view that no writ would lie against the charge memo unless the same is questioned on the ground of jurisdiction and hence the writ petition, in so far as, which challenges the charge memo, is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to make his explanation to the said charge memo within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondents are at liberty to conduct an enquiry, if it is so warranted, and thereafter, the respondent Board shall complete the enquiry and pass appropriate order on merits and in accordance with law, after giving reasonable and adequate opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of three months. 5. Since the order of suspension dated 18.7.2001 challenged in the writ petition has been stayed and the petitioner has been continuously working in the respondent Electricity Board for the past 12 years, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent Electricity Board if the petitioner is allowed to continue in service till the final order is passed. Hence, the order of suspension dated 18.5.2001 passed in proceedings No. 937-1/Ni.Pi.1(2)/2001, dated 18.7.2001 is quashed and the petitioner is permitted to continue in service till the final order is passed in the disciplinary proceedings. 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, No costs.