JUDGMENT & ORDER : (Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writs of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the fourth respondent in R.C.Ku.Pa.No.1/2018 dated 27.8.2018, R.C.Ku.Pa.No.2/2018 dated 27.8.2018 and R.C.Ku.Pa.No.3/2018 dated 19.9.2018 respectively and to quash them.) 1. The charge memos, issued by the fourth respondent, in proceedings dated 27.8.2018, 27.8.2018 and 19.9.2018 respectively, are under challenge in the present writ petitions. 2. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, made a submission that the writ petitioner is working as leading Fireman (LF No.850) in the Fire Service Station at Vellore. 3. On account of certain allegations, three charge memos have been issued against the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 27.8.2018, 27.8.2018 and 19.9.2018 respectively. 4. The charges against the writ petitioner in respect of the first charge memo, are extracted hereunder:- “TAMIL” 5. Annexure-II to the first charge memo provides statement of allegations in respect of the charges framed against the writ petitioner. Annexure-III to the first charge memo denotes the list of documents relied upon by the Department for establishing the charges. Annexure-IV to the first charge memo enumerates the list of witnesses to be examined. Thus, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the charges framed against the writ petitioner. 6. The second charge memo was also issued in proceedings dated 27.8.2018 and the charge framed against the writ petitioner in respect of the second charge memo, is extracted hereunder:- “TAMIL” 7. Annexure-II to the second charge memo provides statement of allegations in respect of the charges framed against the writ petitioner. Annexure-III to the second charge memo denotes the list of documents relied upon by the Department for establishing the charges. Annexure-IV to the second charge enumerates the list of witnesses to be examined. Thus, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the charges framed against the writ petitioner. 8. The third charge memo was also issued in proceedings dated 27.8.2018 and the charge framed against the writ petitioner in respect of the third charge memo, is extracted hereunder:- “TAMIL” 9. Annexure-II to the third charge memo provides statement of allegations in respect of the charges framed against the writ petitioner. Annexure-III to the third charge memo denotes the list of documents relied upon by the Department for establishing the charges. Annexure-II to the third charge memo provides statement of allegations in respect of the charges framed against the writ petitioner. Annexure-III to the third charge memo denotes the list of documents relied upon by the Department for establishing the charges. Annexure-IV to the third charge enumerates the list of witnesses to be examined. Thus, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the charges framed against the writ petitioner. 10. On perusal of all the above three charges, this Court is of an opinion that there is no infirmity in respect of the procedures followed for issuing the impugned charge memos. All the three charge memos are framed under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 11. The writ petitioner instead of filing his explanations/ objections on the charge memo, moved this Court on the ground that the impugned charge memos are issued on mala fide intention. 12. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, also reiterates that the allegations against the writ petitioner are false and incorrect and the charge memos are issued on personal vengeance on the part of the higher officials. However, the allegations, now orally made before this Court, have not been substantiated nor any evidence produced in these writ petitions. 13. This apart, the authority against whom such an allegation of mala fide intention is raised, also has not been impleaded as party respondent nor specific allegations or averments are made in the affidavits of the writ petitions. In the absence of any such concrete allegations stipulated with some documents or evidences, this Court would not be in a position to consider the ground of mala fide against the competent authority. 14. 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. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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 of the judgment 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. 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." 17. 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. 18. 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. 18. 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. 19. In the case of Secretary Ministry of Defence and Others vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha [ (2012) 11 SCC 565 ] and the relevant paragraphs 10 to 12 of the judgment are extracted hereunder:- “10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the court. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [ (1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943 ] , Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [ (1996) 1 SCC 327 ] , Ulagappa v. Commr. [ (2001) 10 SCC 639 : AIR 2000 SC 3603 (2)] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [ (2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467 ] and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [ (2006) 12 SCC 28 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 304].) 11. [ (2001) 10 SCC 639 : AIR 2000 SC 3603 (2)] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [ (2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467 ] and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [ (2006) 12 SCC 28 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 304].) 11. In State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra [ (2010) 13 SCC 311 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 380] (SCC pp. 315-16, para 10) this Court held that normally a charge-sheet is not quashed prior to the conducting of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason that to determine correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. (See also Union of India v. Upendra Singh [ (1994) 3 SCC 357 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 768 : (1994) 27 ATC 200].) 12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject-matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings.” 20. In the case of Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [ (2006) 12 SCC 28 ] and the relevant paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment are extracted hereunder:- “13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [ (1996) 1 SCC 327 : JT (1995) 8 SC 331] , Special Director v. Mohd. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [ (1996) 1 SCC 327 : JT (1995) 8 SC 331] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [ (2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467 ] , Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore [ (2001) 10 SCC 639 ] , State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [ (1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943 ] , etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.” 21. It is now settled that the writ proceedings against the charge memos cannot be entertained in a routine manner nor adjudication on merits in respect of the allegations are to be entertained. All such merits are to be adjudicated by competent authorities at the time of conducting an enquiry by affording opportunity to the delinquent officials. 22. Thus, the arguments advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner in relation to the merits of the allegations deserve no consideration at all. It is left open to the writ petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceedings to be conducted by the Disciplinary Authority and establish his innocence by producing documents and by adducing evidences, if required. 23. 22. Thus, the arguments advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner in relation to the merits of the allegations deserve no consideration at all. It is left open to the writ petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceedings to be conducted by the Disciplinary Authority and establish his innocence by producing documents and by adducing evidences, if required. 23. This being the principles to be followed, the grounds raised for the purpose of quashing the charge memos are certainly in adequate and the mala fide intention raised by the writ petitioner are not substantiated nor any such authority has been impleaded as party respondent in his personal capacity in the writ proceedings. 24. Thus, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.