JUDGMENT : 1. The order not allowing the writ petitioner to retire from service as well as the extension of service and the charge memo issued on the eve of retirement of the writ petitioner, is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner was holding the post of Vocational Training Teacher (Computer Science) in the Government Higher Secondary School, Namakkal (North), Namakkal District and on account of certain allegations, the charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued against the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 28.9.2018. 3. The charges against the writ petitioner are extracted as under:- “TAMIL” 4. Annexure-III to the charge memo denotes the list of documents relied on by the Department for establishing the allegations against the writ petitioner. Annexure IV to the charge memo enumerates the list of witnesses to be examined. Thus, there is no infirmity, as such, sought for in respect of the charge memo issued against the writ petitioner. 5. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner was not allowed to retire on the eve of last date of his retirement and his services are extended. 6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the Enquiry Officer has already been appointed. However, the writ petitioner is not issued with adequate notice, enabling him to participate in the enquiry and defend his case in accordance with the procedures contemplated. 7. Undoubtedly, the date and the place of enquiry must be informed to the delinquent official at least one week in advance, enabling the delinquent official to make arrangement and participate in the enquiry proceedings in order to defend his case. Undoubtedly, such a reasonable demand must be accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, the Enquiry Officer must issue notice one week in advance, enabling the writ petitioner to prepare himself and defend his case in the enquiry proceedings. 8. In respect of the challenge made in the charge memo, this Court is of an opinion that the allegations against the writ petitioner are serious in nature, warranting a detailed enquiry. Thus, the writ petitioner has to participate in the enquiry proceedings in order to establish his innocence or otherwise. 9. The charge memo cannot be quashed by adjudicating the merits of the allegations set out against the writ petitioner. Thus, the writ petitioner has to participate in the enquiry proceedings in order to establish his innocence or otherwise. 9. The charge memo cannot be quashed by adjudicating the merits of the allegations set out against the writ petitioner. All such merits and the demerits of the allegations are to be adjudicated with reference to the original documents available and by adducing the evidences, if necessary. Contrarily, such an exercise in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be undertaken. The grounds raised on merits, deserves no adjudication at all. 10. This apart, the order not allowing the writ petitioner to retire from service also cannot be interfered with in view of the fact that the charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, are pending. Thus, after passing final orders in the departmental disciplinary proceedings, all such further actions shall be initiated for passing final orders, including the service and retirement benefits to be granted to the writ petitioner. 11. 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. 12. 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. 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. 13. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Upendra Singh [ (1994) 3 SCC 357 ] and the relevant 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." 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. In view of this, the writ petitioner is at liberty to participate in the enquiry proceedings and defend his case by availing the opportunities to be provided by the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority. 16. In view of this, the writ petitioner is at liberty to participate in the enquiry proceedings and defend his case by availing the opportunities to be provided by the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority. The Enquiry Officer is directed to issue notice of enquiry at least one week prior to the date of enquiry, enabling the writ petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceedings and defend his case by availing the opportunities. 17. However, the Disciplinary Authority, on initiation of the departmental disciplinary proceedings must ensure that the proceedings are concluded within the reasonable period of time. Undue delay in the conclusion of the departmental disciplinary proceedings will cause prejudice to the interest of the officials. Thus, on initiation of the departmental disciplinary proceedings, the authorities competent shall conclude the proceedings and pass final orders without causing any undue delay. 18. In this case, the charge memo itself was issued on 28.9.2018. The writ petitioner has already submitted his explanation. The Enquiry Officer has also been appointed. Thus, the authorities competent shall proceed with the enquiry and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 19. Thus, it is made clear that the writ petitioner should cooperate with for the disposal of the enquiry proceedings and in the event of any non-cooperation on the part of the writ petitioner, the same shall be recorded by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the Disciplinary Authority in the proceedings itself. 20. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.