ORDER : 1. The charge memo dated 26.07.2017, issued by the first respondent and the consequential order passed in proceedings dated 28.07.2017 withholding the terminal benefits of the writ petitioner on the date of his retirement is under challenge in this writ petition. However, the provisional pension along with relief as admissible is ordered to be paid to the writ petitioner pending disposal of the disciplinary proceedings. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner strenuously contended that the writ petitioner is an innocent person and has not involved in any of the allegations set out in the impugned charge sheet. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel contended that the writ petitioner is not responsible for the allegations set out in the charge memo and he cannot take responsibility for the lapses committed by other officials of the Port Trust. Writ petitioner was the last person serving in this regard and therefore, the charge sheet was issued on personal vengeance and on malafides. Learned Senior Counsel further emphasized that the writ petitioner is a honest officer and he has not committed any irregularity so far, throughout his services. Writ petitioner has got an unblemished record of service and on earlier occasions, no charge sheet was issued against the writ petitioner. 3. Though the learned Senior Counsel contends that the impugned charge sheet was issued on the mala fides, this Court is unable to accept the above without any material on record to substantiate the same. Writ petition cannot be entertained against the charge sheet in a routine manner and only on exceptional circumstances the same can be issued. If a charge sheet was issued by an authority without jurisdiction and if any allegation of malafides is raised, then this Court can exercise the power of judicial review to interfere with the charge sheet. Even in the case of raising the allegations of malafides, the authority against whom such an allegation is raised, is to be impleaded as party in the writ proceedings in his personal capacity. In the absence of any one of these grounds, writ proceedings cannot be initiated challenging the charge sheet. 4. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against any public servant is to be allowed to go on and, it should reach its logical conclusion. The intermediate intervention in the proceedings is not preferable. Only on exceptional circumstances the judicial review can be undertaken. In the absence of any one of these grounds, writ proceedings cannot be initiated challenging the charge sheet. 4. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against any public servant is to be allowed to go on and, it should reach its logical conclusion. The intermediate intervention in the proceedings is not preferable. Only on exceptional circumstances the judicial review can be undertaken. The averments made out in the writ petition on merits need not be considered by this Court at this point of time when the very charge sheet itself is under challenge. All the merits and de-merits are to be adjudicated before the Domestic Enquiry Officer and it is left open to the writ petitioner to prove his innocence before the enquiry officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority. 5. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the writ petitioner is totally unconnected with the allegations set out in the impugned charge sheet. Such general contention at this point of time have no relevance and this Court cannot adjudicate the allegations and counter allegations on merits in this writ petition. Consequential order was passed on account of the retirement of the writ petitioner and it is necessary to pass such an order since the writ petitioner has attained the age of Superannuation. Accordingly, withholding the terminal benefits, the respondents have allowed the provisional pension along with reliefs as admissible under the Rules. Thus, there is no infirmity in the consequential order passed by the respondent in this regard. 6. On a perusal of the other grounds raised in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, this Court is able to find that all the averments are relating to the merits of the case and more specifically countering the allegations set out in the impugned charge sheet. This Court cannot consider those aspects at this stage in this writ petition and it is for the disciplinary authority to consider the same and during the course of enquiry. 7. Though the learned Senior counsel argued that the authorities have acted in a capricious manner so as to punish the writ petitioner. However, there is no substantial material available on record to consider the same. Further, an order of this Court passed in W.P.No.3244 and 3245 of 2016 dated 13.03.2013 had been cited and paragraph 18 of the order reads as follows: "18. However, there is no substantial material available on record to consider the same. Further, an order of this Court passed in W.P.No.3244 and 3245 of 2016 dated 13.03.2013 had been cited and paragraph 18 of the order reads as follows: "18. Considering the totality of the circumstances referred above, I am of the considered view that the charge sheet made against the petitioner dated 20.10.2010 and 21.01.2010 which has been served on the petitioner on 27.01.2010, just five days prior to his retirement, are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. The order of suspension followed by charge memo also is liable to be quashed and accordingly, quashed. The writ petitions stand thus allowed. The respondents are directed to settle the entire terminal benefits to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this order. If the terminal benefits are not settled within the said period, the amount payable shall carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date when it has become due till it is paid to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." 8. On a reading of the order passed by this Court, the relief was granted to the writ petitioner based on certain facts considered by this Court in that writ petition. However, the legal principles in the matter of challenging the charge sheet is not settled by this Court in that writ petition. 9. The legal principles in the matter of challenging the charge sheet was unambiguously enumerated by the Honourable Supreme Court of India time and again. The legal principles on that is, no charge sheet can ordinarily be challenged in a writ proceedings. A writ proceedings can be entertained only on exceptional circumstances and not in a routine manner. If a charge sheet was issued by an authority without jurisdiction or competence and the allegations on malafides are passed against the officer, then a writ can be entertained. Even in case of malafide, it is necessary to substantiate the same by impleading the officer in his personal capacity. The last ground is that if the charge sheet is in violation of statutory Rules, then also writ can be issued and no writ proceedings can be issued challenging the charge sheet on adjudication of merits and the demerits of the cases. The last ground is that if the charge sheet is in violation of statutory Rules, then also writ can be issued and no writ proceedings can be issued challenging the charge sheet on adjudication of merits and the demerits of the cases. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the public servant under the Discipline and Appeal Rules is to be allowed to continue and the authorities concerned should conclude the same as early as possible. Thus, this Court is of the clear opinion that intermediate intervention in disciplinary proceedings cannot be entertained on merits and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is left open to the writ petitioner to submit his explanation by participating in the domestic enquiry proceedings and prove his innocence before the Enquiry Officer by substantiating all necessary documents and evidences to that effect. 10. In such view of the matter, no further adjudication on merits needs to be considered or adjudicated in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.