ORDER : 1. The charge memo issued by the first respondent in proceedings dated 22.04.2016 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Mr. R.D. Ashokkumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner vehemently contended that the writ petitioner is an innocent officer, unconnected with the allegations set out in the charge memo. The learned counsel contended that the charge memo has been issued without any basis and without any complaint from any person. This apart, there is no witness to establish the charges and there is no evidence as such to prove the allegations. In the absence of any such witnesses or evidences, the authorities cannot proceed with the charge memorandum. It is contended that the writ petitioner is no way connected with the allegations set out in the charge memo and no purpose would be served in the event of allowing the disciplinary authority to continue in the disciplinary proceedings. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondents 4 and 5 are impleaded in the present writ petition to establish mala fide intentions on the part of the respondents 4 & 5. On a perusal of the cause title set out in the present writ petition, 4th respondent is Mr.Kempraj, who is working as a Secondary Grade Headmaster, Panchayat Union Elementary School, Therkuserpatti, Manaparai Block, Trichy and the 5th respondent is Mr. A. Baskaran, Secondary Grade Headmaster, Panchayat Union Elementary School, Chinnasamuthiram, Manaparai Block, Trichy. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that at the instance of the respondents 4 & 5, the District Elementary Educational Officer acted against the writ petitioner and framed the charges. 5. This Court is of an opinion that the very basis for the mala fide intention is not sustainable on the ground that the respondents 4 & 5 are not the higher officials and the writ petitioner is holding the post of Assistant Elementary Educational Officer and the only grievance against the respondents 4 & 5 is that they are the persons, who mooted out the complaint against the writ petitioner. Thus, the charge memo itself is to be quashed. 6. The respondents 4 & 5 are not the disciplinary authority. The respondents 4 & 5 are not even directly connected with the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the charge memo itself is to be quashed. 6. The respondents 4 & 5 are not the disciplinary authority. The respondents 4 & 5 are not even directly connected with the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. If at all any inputs or allegations are submitted by the respondents 4 & 5, that cannot be considered as a mala fide intention. Every person, who is working in lower cadre or higher cadre is entitled to submit their complaints or allegations to the authorities concerned. Thus, the same will not constitute a mala fide intention for the purpose of quashing of the charge memo. Thus, the very contention raised in this behalf is untenable. 7. The charge against the writ petitioner are as under: XXX XXX XXX 8. Annexure II to the charge memo provides Statement of Imputations and allegations in respect of the charges. Annexure-III provides the List of Documents. Statement in Annexure-III is the letter of the District Elementary Officer, Trichy dated 30.03.2015 and the enclosures in the said documents. 9. Undoubtedly, no list of witnesses are provided. That does not mean that the charges are liable to be quashed. It is for the authorities to conduct an enquiry and to find out, whether the allegations raised against the writ petitioner is established or not. However, this Court is of an opinion that the charges are certainly serious in nature and the allegations are that, the writ petitioner had collected amount illegally from 410 teachers. Thus, the same require an enquiry to be conducted, to cull out the truth behind the incident. 10. No writ proceedings can be entertained against a charge memo in a routine manner. Judicial review against the charge memo is certainly limited. A writ against a charge memo can be entertained, only if the same has been issued by an authority, having no jurisdiction or competency or the same is in violation of the statutory rules in force. However, in the present case, the allegation of mala fides are raised, but the same has not been substantiated, so as to interfere with the memorandum of charges. The allegations set out against the respondents 4 and 5 are insufficient to come to a conclusion that the charge memo has been issued on mala fide grounds. However, in the present case, the allegation of mala fides are raised, but the same has not been substantiated, so as to interfere with the memorandum of charges. The allegations set out against the respondents 4 and 5 are insufficient to come to a conclusion that the charge memo has been issued on mala fide grounds. Therefore, the writ petitioner has to face the enquiry and establish his innocence before the enquiry proceedings to be conducted by the disciplinary authority. 11. Intermittent intervention in departmental disciplinary proceedings are certainly not preferable. The charge memo or the disciplinary proceedings initiated against a public servant should be concluded in all respects and the same should reach its logical conclusion. Courts cannot interfere in a routine manner with the disciplinary proceedings are in progress. The attitude of the delinquent officials to file writ petitions with a view to prolong and protract the disciplinary proceedings can never be encouraged by the constitutional Courts. Such writ petitions are filed frequently, in order escape from the clutches of disciplinary proceedings by adopting a delay tactics. The authorities competent must be prudent enough in concluding the disciplinary proceedings without any lapse of time. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against a public servant must be concluded within a reasonable period of time, in view of the fact that long delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings will affect the service benefits of the employees also. They are deprived of their promotion and in some cases, the retirement benefits. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings initiated must be completed in all respects within a reasonable time and without any undue delay on the part of the disciplinary authority. 12. This Court is of an opinion that merits and the demerits of the case, cannot be considered in writ proceedings, wherein the very charge memo is under challenge. Merits and the demerits of the allegations are to be adjudicated before the enquiry officer and it is left open to the writ petitioner to submit his explanation/objections in respect of the charge memo and defend his case by availing the opportunities to be provided in accord with the Discipline and Appeal rules in force. 13. Merits and the demerits of the allegations are to be adjudicated before the enquiry officer and it is left open to the writ petitioner to submit his explanation/objections in respect of the charge memo and defend his case by availing the opportunities to be provided in accord with the Discipline and Appeal rules in force. 13. Thus, this Court finds that there is no infirmity as such in respect of the charge memorandum issued against the writ petitioner and certainly the allegations against the writ petitioner is serious in nature, warranting detailed enquiry to cull out the truth behind the incident set out in the charge memo. 14. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Upendra Singh, reported in (1994) 3 SCC 357 and the paragraph 6 which is extracted hereunder: “6.In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the tribunal or court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to court or tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be. The function of the court/tribunal is one of judicial review, the parameters of which are repeatedly laid down by this Court. It would be sufficient to quote the decision in . The Bench comprising M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was) and A.M. Ahmadi, J., affirmed the principle thus : (SCC p. 317, para 8) "Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself." 15. In the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha [Civil Appeal No.2333 of 2007, Decided on May 29, 2012], the Apex Court of India held that normally, a Charge sheet is not liable to be quashed as it does not adversely affect the rights of an employee and does not give rise to any cause of action. A writ lies only when some right of a party is infringed. The charge sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing punishment or otherwise, it may have a cause of action. Hence, writ petition challenging charge sheet by itself is not maintainable. However, it can be quashed on the ground that issuing authority being not competent to issue the same. 16. In the case of Union of India vs. Kunishetty Satyanarayana [ (2006) 12 SCC 28 ], it was held that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not be ordinarily exercised by quashing a charge sheet. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases, the High Court can quash a charge sheet if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. 17. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases, the High Court can quash a charge sheet if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. 17. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the official respondents 1 to 3 made a submission that the Manaparai Teacher's Association passed a resolution, stating that the writ petitioner has illegally collected huge amount from 410 teachers and the resolution passed in this regard by the Teacher's Association has been forwarded to the competent authorities and the same was considered and the charge memo has been issued. 18. The said complaint by the Teacher's Association was forwarded to the Director of Elementary Education, who in turn directed the District Elementary Education officer and a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the competent authorities and thereafter only, the charge memorandum was issued. 19. Thus, there is no infirmity in respect of the charge memo framed against the writ petitioner and there is a strong basis for the initiation of the charge memo against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has to face the enquiry proceedings in the manner known to law. 20. In this view of the matter, the writ petitioner is at liberty to submit his explanation/objections in respect of the charge memo issued against him and participate in the departmental disciplinary proceedings to defend his case in accordance with the procedures as contemplated under the rules. 21. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.