JUDGMENT : P.S.Dinesh Kumar, J. This appeal is preferred by Visvesvaraya Technological University ('VTU' for short) challenging the interim order dated April 9, 2019 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in writ petition No.15501/2019 staying the operation of the order of suspension and charge-sheet issued to the writ petitioner (first respondent). 2. We have heard Shri.D.L.N.Rao, learned Senior Advocate for the VTU and Shri.S.N.Murthy, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioner. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status in the writ petition. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, on May 7, 2016, Dr. H.N.Jagannatha Reddy, working as Professor of Civil Engineering was appointed as the Registrar of VTU. By order dated February 15, 2019, the Vice Chancellor of VTU placed the writ petitioner under suspension. On March 7, 2019, Articles of Charges were communicated to the writ petitioner. Petitioner challenged the order of suspension as also the Articles of Charges in the writ petition. By the impugned interim order, the Hon'ble Single Judge has stayed the operation of both orders. Hence, this writ appeal. 5. Shri.D.L.N.Rao, learned Senior Advocate for VTU submitted that several complaints of corruption were received against the writ petitioner by His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka who is also the Chancellor of VTU. The Chancellor directed an enquiry. Accordingly, Shri. D.S.Shinde, retired District Judge was appointed to inquire and submit a preliminary report. Petitioner challenged the said order in W.P. No.1879/2019 and the same is pending consideration before this Court. 6. The enquiry officer submitted his report on February 13, 2019 stating that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner. On perusal of the said Report, the Chancellor directed to hold a regular departmental enquiry and also to place petitioner under suspension. Accordingly, petitioner has been placed under suspension and Articles of charges have been served on him. 7. Shri.D.L.N. Rao, argued that the Hon'ble Single Judge has granted the interim order holding that the charge sheet and the approval granted by the Executive Council did not demonstrate application of mind. He contended that the Hon'ble Single Judge has passed the interim order by following the authority in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others vs. Ananta Saha and others, (2011) 5 SCC 142 . 8. He contended that the Hon'ble Single Judge has passed the interim order by following the authority in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others vs. Ananta Saha and others, (2011) 5 SCC 142 . 8. Adverting to the Articles of charges, he pointed out that grave charges have been imputed against the writ petitioner. Therefore, pending enquiry, petitioner has been placed under suspension. He argued that it is settled that charge sheet cannot be quashed. He further submitted that by the same analogy, a charge sheet cannot be stayed either. He contended that the Courts cannot take over the functions of Disciplinary Authority. The veracity of charge has to be proved in the Departmental enquiry. He placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565 and in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357 9. With regard to the order of suspension, Shri.D.L.N.Rao urged that the suspension order is passed by the competent authority considering the gravity of charges. The petitioner was working as the Registrar of the University. A Registrar of an University shall have access to all documents and control over the files. Therefore, the order of suspension, pending enquiry is just and appropriate. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this writ appeal. 10. Shri. S.N.Murthy, for the writ petitioner argued in support of the interim order. He contended that the charges are very flimsy in nature. The Vice Chancellor, to wreck his personal vengeance has levelled false imputations to harass the petitioner. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 12. It is settled that a delinquent official is placed under suspension to ensure that he does not gain custody of control of papers or take advantage of his position. In Upendra Singh's case, it is held as follows: "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. 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." (emphasis supplied) 13. In the case of Union of India and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147, it is held as follows: "26.The scope of interference by the Court with the order of suspension has been examined by the Court in a large number of cases, particularly in State of M.P. v. Sardul Singh, (1970) 1 SCC 108 ; P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller & Auditor General of India, (1993) 1 SCC 419 ; Director General, ESI & Anr. v. T. Abdul Razak, (1996) AIR SC 2292; Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. & Ors., (1988) AIR SC 2118; Delhi Cloth General Mills vs. Kushan Bhan, (1960) AIR SC 806; U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Ors. v. Sanjeev Rajan, (1993) Supp3 SCC 483; State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 417 ; Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department v. L. Srinivasan, (1996) 3 SCC 157 ; and Allahabad Bank & Anr. v. Sanjeev Rajan, (1993) Supp3 SCC 483; State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 417 ; Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department v. L. Srinivasan, (1996) 3 SCC 157 ; and Allahabad Bank & Anr. v. Deepak Kumar Bhola, (1997) 4 SCC 1 , wherein it has been observed that even if a criminal trial or enquiry takes a long time, it is ordinarily not open to the court to interfere in case of suspension as it is in the exclusive domain of the competent authority who can always review its order of suspension being an inherent power conferred upon them by the provisions of Article 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and while exercising such a power, the authority can consider the case of an employee for revoking the suspension order, if satisfied that the criminal case pending would be concluded after an unusual delay for no fault of the employee concerned. Where the charges are baseless, mala fide or vindictive and are framed only to keep the delinquent employee out of job, a case for judicial review is made out. But in a case where no conclusion can be arrived at without examining the entire record in question and in order that the disciplinary proceedings may continue unhindered the court may not interfere. In case the court comes to the conclusion that the authority is not proceeding expeditiously as it ought to have been and it results in prolongation of sufferings for the delinquent employee, the court may issue directions. The court may, in case the authority fails to furnish proper explanation for delay in conclusion of the enquiry, direct to complete the enquiry within a stipulated period. However, mere delay in conclusion of enquiry or trial cannot be a ground for quashing the suspension order, if the charges are grave in nature. But, whether the employee should or should not continue in his office during the period of enquiry is a matter to be assessed by the disciplinary authority concerned and ordinarily the court should not interfere with the orders of suspension unless they are passed in mala fide and without there being even a prima facie evidence on record connecting the employee with the misconduct in question." (emphasis supplied) 14. Thus, a Court can interfere with the charges, if they are contrary to law. Thus, a Court can interfere with the charges, if they are contrary to law. The imputation of charges against the petitioner read as follows: that the delinquent official had failed to maintain discipline and uphold the honour of University; that manipulations have been found in transfer orders; that delinquent official had not submitted annual assets and liabilities statements; that though the seat of the Registrar is in Belgavi, he has been functioning from Bengaluru; that the delinquent official formed a local inspection team under Chairmanship of one Arvind Guruji, to inspect AMC Engineering College. It is alleged that there was demand for Rs.25 lakhs from Arvind Guruji, which has been recorded in the CCTV footage. The delinquent official had not brought the same to the notice of the Vice Chancellor nor taken any action with regard to change in the scheduled programs. 15. It is not disputed that the Chancellor had ordered a preliminary enquiry and based on the preliminary enquiry, imputation of charges have been served on the petitioner. Pending enquiry, petitioner has been placed under suspension. Admittedly, petitioner was working as the Registrar of the University. The charge-sheet having been served upon the petitioner, it is expected that the delinquent official must participate in the domestic enquiry. It is fairly well settled that the scope of judicial review with regard to charge sheet is very narrow. 16. Shri.D.L.N.Rao is right in his submission that the authority in the case of Coal India is not applicable to the facts of this case inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was considering the case after dismissal of the delinquent official therein. In contradistinction, in the case on hand, the delinquent is served with the charge sheet, pending enquiry. 17. Therefore, in our considered view, this appeal merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed. Resultantly, the interim order dated April 09, 2019 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in WP No.15501/2019 is set aside. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A. No.2/19 does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of. No costs.