Judgment 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the charge memo. 2. This Writ petition is filed challenging the charge memo on the ground that the charges levelled against the petitioner are factually incorrect and the respondent who issued the charge memo has not considered various proceedings issued earlier granting leave to the petitioner. In effect, the petitioner is trying to question the charge memo on its merits. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 4. In my considered view, this Court, at this stage, cannot go into the merits of the charges and decide as to whether the charge is made out against the petitioner or not. As the jurisdiction of the respondent in issuing the charge memo is not questioned, the petitioner has to only face the enquiry after giving explanation to the charge memo. 5. The petitioner states that the documents referred to in the charge memo have not been furnished to him. If that is the case of the petitioner, the petitioner could seek for furnishing of those documents. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the respondent seeking to furnish those documents within a period of two weeks. If any such request is made, the respondent shall consider the same and furnish those documents without delay. On completion of the said procedures, the respondent shall complete the disciplinary proceedings and pass final orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of furnishing of such documents. 7. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.