JUDGMENT : S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J. 1. The charge memo issued to the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 09.03.2011 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Village Assistant and on account of certain allegations, a charge memo was issued against the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 09.03.2011. The Charges against the writ petitioner is extracted are under:- xxx xxx xxx 3. Annexure-II provides the statement of allegations namely imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the charge framed against the writ petitioner. Annexure-III provides the list of documents 16 documents were listed and therefore this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the charge memo issued against the Petitioner. 4. On perusal of the charge memo and the nature of the allegations, this Court is of an opinion that the charges are relating to corrupt activities of the writ petitioner and there is a demand and acceptance of bribe for performing the duties and responsibilities. Thus, a full-fledged enquiry into the allegations is certainly required. This court cannot show any leniency in respect of the allegations of corruption and it is left open to the writ petitioner to participate in the enquiry and prove his innocence or otherwise. 5. No writ can be entertained challenging a charge memo in a routine manner. Judicial review in this regard is certainly limited and the constitutional Courts are to be cautious, while entertaining a writ petition against a charge memo. 6. A charge memo per se cannot constitute any cause of action to entertain a writ petition. A writ petition can be entertained against a charge memo, if the same is issued by the authority having no jurisdiction or competency or if any mala-fide allegations are raised or if the same is in violation of the Statutory Rules in force. Even in case, raising allegations on mala-fides, the authority against whom allegation is raised to be impleaded as party respondent in his personal capacity. In the absence of any one of these legal grounds, no writ petition can be entertained against a charge memo and it is left open to the writ petitioner to prove his innocence before the enquiry officer by providing evidence, documents, etc. Intermittent intervention in the departmental disciplinary proceedings are certainly not desirable. 7. In the absence of any one of these legal grounds, no writ petition can be entertained against a charge memo and it is left open to the writ petitioner to prove his innocence before the enquiry officer by providing evidence, documents, etc. Intermittent intervention in the departmental disciplinary proceedings are certainly not desirable. 7. On initiation of the disciplinary proceedings the authorities competent shall ensure that the enquiry proceedings are concluded at the earliest possible without causing any unnecessary delay. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against a public servant should be allowed to be concluded within a reasonable period of time and the same should reach its logical conclusion. The authorities competent on initiation of the disciplinary proceedings cannot keep the same pending for long years. Long pendency of the disciplinary proceedings would cause prejudice to the delinquent employees. 8. For instance, pending disciplinary proceedings is a bar for promotion, so also for retiring employee. He will be deprived of his pensionary benefits during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. Thus the disciplinary authority once initiated the proceedings under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, should conclude the same without any delay. 9. A direction issued by the Government for speedy disposal of the disciplinary proceedings, though is directory in nature, the authorities competent have to keep in mind that this is temporary and prescribed only to avoid further complication and to see that the said disciplinary proceedings are concluded within a reasonable time. 10. Even writ proceedings are filed under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the delinquent officials, challenging a charge memo in order to prolong and protract the disciplinary proceedings. In some cases, the Courts are witnessing that repeated writ petitions are filed at each and every stage of the disciplinary proceedings with an idea to escape from the clutches of the disciplinary proceedings. Such an attitude of the delinquent officials cannot be encouraged. Entertaining such a writ petition itself to be curtailed in view of the fact that long pendency of the writ petition in High Courts would provide undue advantage to the delinquent officials, and would pave way to escape from the clutches of disciplinary proceedings on account of long delay. 11. 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. 11. 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. 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 vs. Gopi Nath and 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.” 12. 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.” 12. 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. 13. In the case of Union of India vs. Kunishetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 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. 14. The allegations set out in the charge memo are in relation to the corrupt activities of and this Court is not inclined to consider the grounds raised in the writ petition. It is left open to the writ petitioner to submit his explanations/objections and prove his innocence before the enquiry proceedings to be conducted. 15. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, MP (MD) No. 2 of 2011 is closed.