JUDGMENT : 1. The relief sought for in this writ petition is to quash the charge memo issued to the writ petitioner by the second respondent in proceedings dated 23.06.2014. The charge framed against the writ petitioner are here as under : “TAMIL” Annexure-II to the charge memo states about the statement of misconducts and Annexure-III denotes the list of documents. Annexure-IV to the charge memo furnishes the list of witnesses. 2. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the charge memo impugned in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Office Assistant through employment exchange and the above charges framed against the writ petitioner are untenable. 4. The writ petitioner raised a ground that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that the 2nd respondent put up an office note on 19.03.2014, against the writ petitioner. Thus, the office note which is a subject matter of the charge memo and the same is untenable. However, the writ petitioner has not raised any personal allegation against the second respondent and the second respondent has been impleaded only in his official capacity. In order to substantiate any mala fides, the authority concerned is to be impleaded in his personal capacity. Thus, such unsubstantiated allegations against an official cannot be considered in this writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the nature of the allegations are not so serious and therefore, the charges framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules are unsustainable. For routine lapses, the respondents ought to have framed charges only under Rule 17(a) for imposing minor penalty and this court is unable to accept this in view of the fact that the Government guidelines in this regard are only an instruction and on a perusal of the allegations, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in respect of framing of the charges under Rule 17(b) of the Discipline and Appeal rules against the writ petitioner. 6. No writ proceedings can be entertained against a charge memo in a writ and the Court cannot entertain such writ proceedings. 6. No writ proceedings can be entertained against a charge memo in a writ and the Court cannot entertain such writ proceedings. Writ proceedings can be entertained only if the charge memo is issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or an allegation of mala fides are raised or if the same is in violation of the statutory rules. However, in case of raising the allegation of mala fides, the authority against whom such an allegation is raised to be impleaded as a party respondent in the writ proceedings in his personal capacity. In the absence of any of these legal grounds, no writ can be entertained against the employee. 7. Intermittent intervention in disciplinary proceedings are not preferable and a judicial review in this regard is certainly limited and the Courts cannot adjudicate the merits and demerits of the allegations set out in the charge memo in the writ petition. It is for the disciplinary authority to conduct the enquiry proceedings and enquire into the allegations set out in the charge memo. It is left open to the writ petitioner to submit his explanation/objections in the enquiry proceedings and defence his case in order to prove his innocence in respect of the allegations made out in the charge memo. 8. Thus, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition filed, challenging the charge memo, cannot be entertained. However, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner brought to the notice of the Court that at the time of passing interim order in this writ petition, This Court granted an interim order on 13th August 2014 and this Court held that the disciplinary authority shall continue the disciplinary proceedings and passing of the final order alone is stayed. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader informed this Court that the enquiry proceedings were completed in all respects and the enquiry officer also submitted the enquiry report which was received. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the second show cause notice along with the enquiry report has not been communicated to the writ petitioner. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader informed this Court that the enquiry proceedings were completed in all respects and the enquiry officer also submitted the enquiry report which was received. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the second show cause notice along with the enquiry report has not been communicated to the writ petitioner. In this regard, it is for the competent authority to issue second show cause notice and communicate the copy of the enquiry report to the writ petitioner and further provides an opportunity and after receiving explanation/objections from the writ petitioner, they can take a decision based on the materials available on record and pass final orders in the departmental disciplinary proceedings. 10. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate the matters set out in respect of the allegations stated in the charge memo impugned in this writ petition. Now, it is for the disciplinary authority to complete the disciplinary proceedings in all respects by providing opportunity to the writ petitioner and take a decision and pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings without causing any further delay. In this regard, as per the directions of this Court, Mr. L. Uthaya Kumar, The Director Evaluation and Applied Research Department, Kuralagam-3rd floor, Chennai – 600 108 is present before this Court and informed that show cause notice has been issued by the department enclosing the copy of the enquiry report. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to complete the process of enquiry in all respects by providing opportunity to the writ petitioner and after receiving an explanation, they can take a decision based on the materials available on record and pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.