JUDGMENT Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record. 2. The petitioner has challenged the charge sheet dated 12 February 2016 on the ground that the charges indicated in the charge sheet impugned had already been inquired. In support of his submission he has drawn attention of this Court towards letter dated 16 April 2016 written by the Special Secretary Medical and Health to the Secretary Medical and Health. 3. A bare perusal of the letter shows that the complaint made against the petitioner are under inquiry, as till date no complete records are available for inquiry. In view of the aforesaid submission the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to interfere with the inquiry are unsustainable. 4. That apart learned Standing Counsel has raised objection against the maintainability of the writ petition. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ministry of Defence Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha 2012 (11) SCC 565 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that : "10.Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, the charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. (Vide State of U.P. Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Ulagappa Vs. Commissioner Special Director Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Union of India Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana. 11. In State of Orissa Vs. Sangram Keshari Misra (SCC pp. 315-16, para 10) this Court held that normally a charge-sheet is not quashed prior to the conduction of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason that to determine correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. (See also Union of India Vs. Upendra Singh). 12. 315-16, para 10) this Court held that normally a charge-sheet is not quashed prior to the conduction of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason that to determine correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. (See also Union of India Vs. Upendra Singh). 12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject-matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings." In Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana 2006 (12) SCC 28 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that : "13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa Vs. Divisional Commissioner Mysore, State of U.P. Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma, etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show- cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such a direction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter. " In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as keeping in view the facts of the present case, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. In the result the writ petition stands dismissed. The petitioner shall be provided a fresh charge sheet containing specific charges levelled against him which shall be replied by him without committing delay. The inquiry shall be completed expeditiously subject to petitioner's cooperation.