Judgment :- Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. Assailing the show cause notice dated 24.2.2009 issued by the first respondent and the charge memo dated 11.4.2005 issued by the second respondent and also the suspension order dated 22.4.2005 issued by the first respondent, the petitioner has come up with the wit petition. The learned Single Judge, recording the finding that since the enquiry was complete in the meantime, the disciplinary authority may be directed to pass final order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the appellant / writ petitioner, while working as Inspector of Factories, was served with charge memo dated 11.4.2005 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, containing five charges. On the heels of it, she was placed under suspension on 22.4.2005. 3. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the enquiry was bogus as the officers have proceeded ex parte without furnishing documents and giving opportunity to the appellant /writ petitioner to defend the charges. In such view of the matter, even if the enquiry is complete, the charge memo is unsustainable in law. 4. The learned Single Judge observed as under : “6. Justifying the reasons for not furnishing the irrelevant documents, the learned Special Government Pleader, by highlighting that the respondents have complied with the order passed by this Court, again submitted that the respondents had initiated the enquiry and the enquiry officer also completed the enquiry proceedings and that the petitioner also, having participated in the first three hearings, subsequently had deliberately avoided and finally the enquiry officer, who initiated the enquiry, had completed the same and submitted a report. After receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has furnished a copy of the report along with the second show cause notice calling the petitioner to submit her written representation. Only at this stage the petitioner has come to this Court. Therefore, the petitioner should allow the respondents to pass orders based on the report of the enquiry officer. Only thereafter, if the decision that is going to be taken by the disciplinary authority is against the petitioner, it is open to her to challenge the said decision. Only at this stage the petitioner has come to this Court. Therefore, the petitioner should allow the respondents to pass orders based on the report of the enquiry officer. Only thereafter, if the decision that is going to be taken by the disciplinary authority is against the petitioner, it is open to her to challenge the said decision. But today it is not known whether the disciplinary authority is going to take a decision in favour of the petitioner or against her. Therefore, at this stage, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the report of the enquiry officer, he pleaded.” and ultimately found that since the enquiry was complete, new cause of action has arisen and as such, no interference is warranted, at this stage. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the entire facts. 6. We are in total agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. If the enquiry is defective on account of certain allegations made by the writ petitioner, the same cannot be a ground for quashing the memo of charges. The defective enquiry may be a ground for assailing the final order passed on the basis of the enquiry report. Since the enquiry is complete, no cause of action survives at this stage for adjudication. 7. For these reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, at this stage. Reserving liberty to the appellant /writ petitioner to raise all available issues as provided under law, at an appropriate time when proper cause of action arises, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.