JUDGMENT : 1. The core contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire charge memo impugned in this writ petition was issued on malice. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that he who made a complaint against certain financial irregularities occurred in the University. He is a whistle blower, was being harassed by the second respondent/Registrar. The petitioner states that the second respondent is the reason behind the issuance of charge memo impugned in the present writ petition. The complaint made by the writ petitioner against the illegalities and irregularities and certain malpractice took place in the University, an action was initiated by the competent authorities and a criminal case was registered and the matter is pending before the competent Court of law. In view of the complaint given by the writ petitioner as a responsible officer of the University, he was made to suffer and charge memo was issued against him. Certain incidents are narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in respect of the nature of the complaint given by the writ petitioner and the action taken against the officials responsible for such irregularities and illegalities. 3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner is of an opinion that the second respondent, who is none other than the Registrar of the University has taken personal vengeance against the writ petitioner and issued the present charge memo. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the writ petitioner was appointed by undergoing the process of selection on 30.07.2008. Three tire selection process was conducted and the certificate submitted by the writ petitioner was verified by the Selection Committee itself. Thus, the verification of certificates once again would not arise at all. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the Enquiry Officer was appointed even before the submission of his explanation and such a procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Authority is contrary to the Disciplinary procedures. Thus, the charge memo is liable to be set aside. 5. On a perusal of the affidavit, the writ petitioner has narrated the factual details regarding the complaint given by him against the irregularities accord in the University. The Registrar was impleaded as party respondent in his personal capacity in the present writ petition. Thus, the charge memo is liable to be set aside. 5. On a perusal of the affidavit, the writ petitioner has narrated the factual details regarding the complaint given by him against the irregularities accord in the University. The Registrar was impleaded as party respondent in his personal capacity in the present writ petition. The actions taken by the Vigilance Department is also narrated by the writ petitioner. Further, it is stated that in respect of the allegations in the charge memo, service certificate produced by the writ petitioner was properly scrutinized and verified by the authorities competent and therefore, the present charge-memo is misconceived one and issued on personal vengeance and accordingly, liable to be scraped. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the contention by stating that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the complaint alleged to have been given by the writ petitioner is absolutely unconnected with the nature of the allegations set out in the main charge memo. Nature of the allegations set out in the charge memo is in relation to the bogus certificate issued for the purpose of securing the employment in the University. Thus, the allegations in relation to the irregularities or misappropriation in the University is no way connected with the allegations now framed against the writ petitioner in the charge memo. The writ petitioner in order to circumvent the circumstances of facing the charge memo, made certain personal allegation against the Registrar and impleaded him as second respondent in the present writ petition. However, the second respondent had already retired from service and now not working in the University at all. Thus, the very ground raised by the writ petitioner need not be considered after a length of time. This apart, the University is ready to appoint a new Enquiry Officer, so as to conduct a free and fair enquiry. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be rejected. 7. Considering the arguments as advanced by the respective learned counsel on behalf of the parties to this lis, this Court is of an opinion that the charge memo, per se will not provide a cause of action for the purpose of filing the writ petition. The charge memo is nothing but an initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an employee. 7. Considering the arguments as advanced by the respective learned counsel on behalf of the parties to this lis, this Court is of an opinion that the charge memo, per se will not provide a cause of action for the purpose of filing the writ petition. The charge memo is nothing but an initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an employee. Cause of action would arise only in the event of passing of final order in the Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings. However, on certain exceptional circumstances, the charge memo can be challenged. A writ petition against a charge memo cannot be entertained in a routine manner by the High Court. The Judicial Review in this regard is also limited. However, the writ petition can be entertained if the charge memo was issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or if an allegation of malafides are raised or if the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. 8. In the present case, the writ petitioner urged this Court that there is a point of malafide in respect of the second respondent and the second respondent is impleaded in his personal capacity and therefore, the point of malice to be considered. 9. In support of this, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents University has not filed any counter affidavit in order to rebute the said allegation set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 10. This Court is of an opinion that no doubt the second respondent is impleaded as party respondent in his personal capacity. Undoubtedly, certain allegations are set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, however, this Court is bound to look into the nature of the allegations raised in the present writ petition filed by the petitioner. On an entire perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, this Court is able to find all the allegations are relating to the complaint given by the writ petitioner against the certain illegalities and irregularities took place in the University. No doubt, there is a possibility of certain personal animosities against the writ petitioner in view of the fact that he has given a complaint against the officials of the University. No doubt, there is a possibility of certain personal animosities against the writ petitioner in view of the fact that he has given a complaint against the officials of the University. However, those personal animosities have any direct impact in respect of the charge memo also has to be considered by this Court. This Court is of an opinion that raising malafide allegation against an official is one part of the matter. However, such allegations raised by the petitioner is in connection with the charge memo framed against the petitioner is also to be looked into. In other words, if the allegations raised by the petitioner is unconnected with the charge memo framed against him, then this Court has to draw an inference that both are unconnected and on that ground the charge memo cannot be quashed. Further, it is necessary to mention that if the malafide allegations, as raised in the present writ petition is directly in connection with the allegations set out in the charge memo or not. The charges against the writ petitioner are as under:- “1. That you have produced two service certificates viz (i) “Memorandum of Service Certificate? dated 06.07.2007 signed by Secretary & Principal, Scott Christian College (Autonomous), Nagercoil and countersigned by the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli. (ii) Certificate-Service issued by Dr. K.S. Gopalakrishnan, Registrar incharge, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai vide Ref SO/P2/TA/2003 Dated 03.07.2003 to satisfy the norms of UGC for appointment in the post of Reader and thus gained appointment by virtue of the said two service certificates. However, it is found later that the said two service certificates submitted by you for your appointment as Reader in the University are fabricated and false. 2. That you did not have the required five years of experience of teaching and or research as required for appointment to the post of Reader as per the norms stipulated by UGC Regulation as on 06.06.2007 that is the last date prescribed for submission of application for appointment to the post of Reader Department of English and thus gained appointment in the University as Reader, Department of English without the teaching experience of five years as prescribed by UGC Regulations.” 11. The charges are relating to the production of the bogus service certificate by the writ petitioner for the purpose of securing employment in the University. The charges are relating to the production of the bogus service certificate by the writ petitioner for the purpose of securing employment in the University. The writ petitioner states that the certificates were already verified by the Selection Committee. This Court is of an opinion that if there is any doubt in respect of any certificate produced by any employee, the employer is empowered to verify the genuinety of the same at any point of time. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the University had already sent a certificate for verification to the authorities, who issued the same and they had received the reply by stating that those certificate were not genuine. Therefore, they have initiated the Disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner. It is clarified that the charge memo was issued after verifying the genuinity of the certificate produced by the writ petitioner at the time of securing the employment in the university. Thus, such an allegation of submission of bogus certificate for securing the employment is unconnected with the complaint given by the writ petitioner in respect of malpractice or misappropriation took place in the University. 13. The writ petitioner is a responsible Associate Professor is bound to give a complaint whenever he notices the irregularities or misappropriation in the University. A responsible Associate Professor as a matter of fact, a staff of the University if notices any illegality or irregularity or misappropriation, is bound to lodge a complaint. In the present writ petition, if the writ petitioner failed to submit a complaint then this Court presume that he would fail to brought to the knowledge of the authorities in respect of certain illegalities. Performing a duty as a Associate Professor in the University cannot be construed as a malice. Even if certain authorities has taken it as a vengeance, then also it will not prevent the authorities to verify the certificate produced by the writ petitioner for the purpose of securing employment. A whistle blower, who is none other than the employee of the University cannot seek exemption from verification of his certificate produced at the time of appointment. Even if certain authorities has taken it as a vengeance, then also it will not prevent the authorities to verify the certificate produced by the writ petitioner for the purpose of securing employment. A whistle blower, who is none other than the employee of the University cannot seek exemption from verification of his certificate produced at the time of appointment. This Court is of an opinion that even in a case where such charge memo is framed against the writ petitioner on the ground that he has given a complaint against the Registrar, then also the genuinity of the certificate is also be verified by the competent authorities for the purpose of continuing the employment. Therefore, the point of malice raised in the present writ petition may not have relevance. Thus, it need not be considered as vital in respect of conduct of enquiry in relation to the certificate produced by the petitioner for the purpose of securing employment. 14. This Court has to consider that whether malice is the vital ground in respect of proceeding with the enquiry. 15. Now, the learned counsel for the respondents made it clear that the second respondent had already left the University and he will not be conducting any enquiry or considering the documents of enquiry report of otherwise. This apart, the learned counsel for the respondents made it very clear that the University is ready and willing to appoint a new Enquiry Officer so as to conduct a free and fair enquiry by providing an opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend his case in accordance with the Rules in force. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that even the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner to the charge memo should be considered by the Syndicate of the University. It is not for this Court to laid down the procedures to be followed and it is for the competent authorities to follow the procedures in accordance with the Rules in force. All the Disciplinary proceedings are to be conducted in accordance with the established procedures and in consonance with the Rules in force and in order to avoid further litigations, the authorities have to follow the procedures carefully and meticulously for the completion of disciplinary proceedings in all respects. 17. All the Disciplinary proceedings are to be conducted in accordance with the established procedures and in consonance with the Rules in force and in order to avoid further litigations, the authorities have to follow the procedures carefully and meticulously for the completion of disciplinary proceedings in all respects. 17. The disciplinary proceedings once initiated against an employee should be completed in all respects within a reasonable time and the same should reach its logical conclusion. Prolonging the matter will cause prejudice to the employees also. Then the Disciplinary Authority has to keep in mind that the procedures initiated is to be completed within a reasonable period of time and without causing undue delay. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner is to be considered afresh and if necessary, the writ petitioner shall be permitted to submit further explanation in view of the fact that the writ petition is pending for few years. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh explanation/objections in respect of the charge memo framed against him in proceedings, dated 09.04.2012. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment in the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Gurdial Singh and others reported in (1980) 2 SCC 471 . He referred paragraph 21 of the judgment, which reads as under:- “21. On a conspectus of the material on the record it does seem that the impugned acquisition proceedings cannot be sustained. There is reason to believe that the statutory power to acquire land has been misused to satisfy the personal ends of respondent 22, an individual who appears to be not without considerable political influence. Despite an opportunity afforded to controvert the allegations made by the respondents 1 to 21, no attempt has been made by him to contradict the allegations. A counter- affidavit has been filed in this Court on behalf of the petitioners, the State of Punjab and the Estra Assistant Colonization Officer, but the material portion of the counter-affidavit has been verified by its deponent “to the best of my knowledge and belief as derived from official record”. The land belonging to respondents 1 to 21 was selected by a body described as the Site Selection Board. The land belonging to respondents 1 to 21 was selected by a body described as the Site Selection Board. There was also a new Mandi Control Board. The deponent of the counter-affidavit was not a member of either Board. He was not a participant in the deliberations which are said to have led to the selection of the land belonging to the said respondents. Whether or not the deliberations were affected by the influence or pressure of respondent 22 is a matter to which the officials or members selecting the land could alone be privy. In the absence of any denial of the allegations made by respondents 1 to 21 in the writ petition by a person having personal and direct knowledge in the matter, and having regard to the entire history of the case, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the averments in the writ petition alleging made fides must be accepted.” 21. On a perusal of the judgment, the observation made by the Court in respect of the fact that “despite an opportunity afforded to controvert the allegations”. The said observation cannot be taken as applicable in respect of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The authority propounded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that merely the allegations are not controverted the same to be accepted as it is, has no merit consideration. The Court has to prima facie get satisfied in respect of the relevant and the connectivity in respect of the allegations set out in the impugned charge memo. In other words, the charge memo issued against the writ petitioner is absolutely unconnected with the complaint given by the petitioner against the other officials in respect of certain illegalities. This being the factum, this writ petitioner has not prima facie set out in the complaint given by him and the charge memo is interconnected even otherwise the charge memo is no way linked or connected with the allegations set out in the complaint by the writ petitioner. Thus, the very judgment may not have any applicability in respect of the facts and circumstances. 22. 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. Thus, the very judgment may not have any applicability in respect of the facts and circumstances. 22. 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. 23. 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 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. 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." 24. In the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others vas. 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. 25. 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. 26. In this view of the matter, this Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner is bound to participate in the Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings by availing the opportunities to be provided to him under the Rules in force. 27. 26. In this view of the matter, this Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner is bound to participate in the Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings by availing the opportunities to be provided to him under the Rules in force. 27. In this view of the matter, the writ petitioner is directed to submit any further explanation/objections within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 28. The first respondent is directed to appoint a fresh enquiry officer so as to conduct the Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings in a free and fair manner. Further, it is made clear that the Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings in all respects to be concluded within a reasonable period of time and final order in the Disciplinary proceedings is to be passed by following the procedures and based on the materials available on record. 29. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.