JUDGMENT S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J. 1. The charge memo dated 20.09.2012 issued against the writ petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner joined as Sub-Inspector of Police directly under the Tamilnadu Police Force during the year 1997. He was promoted as Inspector of Police in 1998 and thereafter promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from July 2010. On account of certain allegations, the charge memo has been issued against the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 20.09.2012. The charges against the writ petitioner are as below: IMAGE 3. On perusal of the charge memo, this Court is of an opinion that there is no infirmity as such. The allegations against the writ petitioner are certainly serious, warranting an enquiry to be conducted by the authority competent. The grounds raised by the writ petitioner to quash the charge memo is that the first charge memo dated 03.06.2011 issued under rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules had been dropped and in respect of the very same cause of action and after conducting a preliminary enquiry on receipt of the explanation from the writ petitioner, the charge memo under rule 17(b) of the said Rules has been issued. Thus the very initiation is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that without issuing any show cause notice in respect of the conversion of charge memo, the 17(a) charge memo had been converted into 17(b) charge memo. Thus the impugned charge memo is in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. In respect of the first ground, this Court is of an opinion that undoubtedly the charge memo under 17(a) of the said Rules was issued to the writ petitioner. Subsequently, the explanation had been received from the writ petitioner and considering the writ petitioner's explanations, the Authorities though fit to convert the charges into the charges under rule 17(b) of the said Rules. This Court is of an opinion that whenever the Authorities found that the allegations are not falling under rule 17(a) and falling under rule 17(b), the conversion is permissible and the same cannot be questioned in this regard. The allegations are to be enquired into by providing opportunity to the delinquent officials and disciplinary proceedings are to be conducted by following the procedures contemplated under the said Rules. The allegations are to be enquired into by providing opportunity to the delinquent officials and disciplinary proceedings are to be conducted by following the procedures contemplated under the said Rules. Mere conversion per se cannot be questioned by the delinquent officials on the ground that such a conversion is impermissible. If at all a charge memo has been framed under rule 17(a) of the said Rules and after conducting a preliminary enquiry, on receipt of explanation from the delinquent officer, if the disciplinary Authority found that the charges are serious in nature, then such conversion is permissible and the same cannot be held as invalid. 5. Under these circumstances, this Court is of an opinion that mere conversion of charges from 17(a) and 17(b) cannot be questioned. In respect of show cause notice, the conversion of charge memo has been issued and even the impugned charge memo provides opportunity to the writ petitioner to submit the explanation/objections in respect of the allegations set out in the charge memo. Thus, the opportunities are available to the writ petitioner to defend his case in accordance with the rules in force. After converting the charges from 17(a) to 17(b), the writ petitioner has been given opportunity to submit his explanation. Thereafter the disciplinary Authority has to consider the representation once again and if they are not satisfied, they are at liberty to conduct an enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader informed this Court that an enquiry officer in the rank of Superintendent of Police has already been appointed by the disciplinary Authority who in turn has to conduct an enquiry and submit a report in respect of the allegations set out in the charge memo. This being the process to be conducted, the writ petitioner cannot challenge the very charge memo on the ground that conversion of charge memo is impermissible. Such conversion would not affect the right of opportunity to be provided to the delinquent officials. Under these circumstances, it is left open to the writ petitioner to submit his explanation / objections and participate in the departmental disciplinary proceedings to prove his innocence or otherwise. 7. This court has already discussed the same in a similar case in W.P.No.17151 of 2005 dated 07.12.2017, wherein it has been held as follows: 3. Under these circumstances, it is left open to the writ petitioner to submit his explanation / objections and participate in the departmental disciplinary proceedings to prove his innocence or otherwise. 7. This court has already discussed the same in a similar case in W.P.No.17151 of 2005 dated 07.12.2017, wherein it has been held as follows: 3. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the charge memorandum framed against the writ petitioner. A charge memo can be challenged on a limited ground and a judicial review against the charge memo is certainly limited. A charge memo can be challenged on limited grounds and the Court can entertain a writ petition on exceptional circumstances. A charge memo can be challenged if the same was issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction, an allegation of mala fides is raised if the same is in violation of statutory rules. Even in case of raising the allegation of mala fides, the authority against whom such an allegation is raised, has to be impleaded as a party respondent in the writ proceedings in his personal capacity. In the absence of any such legal grounds, no charge memo can be entertained by way of writ petition. 4. Intermittent intervention in the disciplinary proceedings is not preferable. However, only on exceptional circumstances, this Court can issue a direction against the proceedings and not in a routine manner. Mere issuance of a call letter to the writ petitioner directing him to participate in the domestic enquiry will not give any cause of action to move this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the writ petition is absolutely misconceived and the grounds raised in this writ petition cannot be considered. 5. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Upendra Singh, (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. 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 H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority, Kamal v. Gopi Nath & Sons. 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. 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." 6. 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. 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. 7. 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. 8. In view of the fact that the allegations against the writ petitioner are serious in nature and already the respondents have converted the charges under rule 17(b) of the said Rules, the writ petitioner has to establish his innocence by participating in the enquiry proceeding. Contrarily, the very initiation of the disciplinary proceeding and the charge memo cannot be questioned on the grounds raised by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition. 9. Thus the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.