JUDGMENT : 1. The charge memo dated 25.06.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner is now serving as Chief Civil Surgeon / Medical Officer, Government Hospital at Anthiyur. 3. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the entire allegations are false, which were culminated from and out of the frivolous complaint alleged by one Mr.S.V.Marimuthu, a member of Communist Party and a full time Politician. He was in the habit of referring patients for immediate attendance by the Doctors, seeking the issue of Medicines without referral of the patients for his personal gain and also sought for tablets. The writ petitioner n Director of Health Services and the same is reads arrated certain instances, which led to the filing of the complaint against the writ petitioner by Mr.S.V.Marimuthu, who belongs to Communist Party. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a submission that the preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director, Medical and Rural Health Services and Family Welfare, Erode and based on the preliminary enquiry, the Department came to know that the allegations are incorrect. It is stated that the subsequent complaints also motivated by the very same Mr.S.V.Marimuthu in the name of some other persons and various such instances are narrated in the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner along with the writ petition. 5. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, on explaining certain factual instances. Mainly, it is contended that as per Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the 3rd respondent, namely, the Joint Director of Medical Services is not empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings and issue charges against the writ petitioner as the writ petitioner is serving in the State Services. 6. It is further contended that the charge could be initiated only by the Director of Medical and Rural Services and the punishment could be imposed only by the 1st respondent / The Secretary to Government. Thus, the 3rd respondent acted without any jurisdiction and on that ground also, the impugned charge memo is liable to be scrapped. 7. 6. It is further contended that the charge could be initiated only by the Director of Medical and Rural Services and the punishment could be imposed only by the 1st respondent / The Secretary to Government. Thus, the 3rd respondent acted without any jurisdiction and on that ground also, the impugned charge memo is liable to be scrapped. 7. This Court is of an undoubted opinion that the explanations provided in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, defending the charges, can never be adjudicated in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is unnecessary to go into the facts and circumstances narrated by the writ petitioner as a defence to the allegations set out in the memorandum of charges. Such complex facts and circumstances arising on account of certain allegations are to be established only by filing documents and by adducing evidences, if required. Contrarily, such an exercise cannot be undertaken by the Hon'ble High Court in a writ proceedings nor a charge memo can be quashed by appreciating the defence statements provided in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. This being the legal principles, in respect of the adjudication of the defense statements provided by the delinquent officials in a writ proceedings. 8. Now this Court has to consider the ground raised by the learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioner as per Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the 3rd respondent is not the competent authority. 9. 8. Now this Court has to consider the ground raised by the learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioner as per Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the 3rd respondent is not the competent authority. 9. Let us now read the Amended Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which is extracted hereunder:- 12.(1) The State Government may impose any of the penalties specified in items (i) and (iii) to (viii) in rule 8 on members of the State Services; Provided that if the Governor of Tamil Nadu is himself, the appointing authority for any service or class or category thereof, he may himself impose any of the said penalties on members of that service, class or category, as the case may be: Provided further that in the case of the members of the Services specified in column(1) of Appendix IV to these rules, the authority which may impose any of the penalties mentioned in items (i),(iii) so far as it relates to withholding of increments and (v) in rule 8 shall be the authorities specified in the corresponding entries in columns(2),(3) and (4) thereof. Provided also that the High Court of Judicature at Madras may impose on members of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service any of the penalties specified in items (i), (iii), 9iv),(v) and (ix) in rule 8. Provided also that the High Court of Judicature at Madras may impose on members of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service any of the penalties specified in items (i), (iii), 9iv),(v) and (ix) in rule 8. (Vide G.O.Ms.No.19, P&AR(N) Department, dated 11.2.2008) (w.e.f.11.2.2008) (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the appointing authority or any authority administratively higher to the appointing authority may impose the penalties specified in items (i),(iii) to (viii) and (ix) of rule 8 on members of the State Service: Provided that where the members of the State Services have been appointed by the Government or by any authority administratively higher than the appointing authority, the penalties specified in items (iii) in so far as it relates to withholding of promotion and items (iv),(vi),(vii) and (viii) in rule 8 shall be imposed only by the Government or by such higher authority: Provided further that where the State Government are the appointing authority for members holding the posts included in the State Services, the Heads of Departments concerned may impose any of the penalties specified in item (i) and item (iii) in so far as it 8 relates to withholding of increments and items (v) and (ix) in rule 8 on those members other than such members who are immediately below such Heads of Departments: Provided also that all authorities directly higher to the members holding the posts included in the State Services may frame charges against such members of the State Services under rule 17(b) or issue show cause notice under rule 17(a) even if they are not the competent authority to impose the penalty and they may conduct the inquiry themselves or request the competent authority to appoint an officer to conduct the inquiry. They shall remit the papers to the competent authority for passing final orders, after the case is processed upto the level of completion of inquiry or after receipt of explanation to show cause notice, as the case may be. Provided also that where the appointing authority or the authority administratively higher to the appointing authority have passed orders of suspension under rule 17(e) on the members of the State Services, they may exercise the power to impose the penalty specified in item (ix) in rule 8 on such members.” (Vide G.O.Ms.No.19, P&AR(N) Department, dated 11.2.2008) (w.e.f.11.2.2008) 10. Provided also that where the appointing authority or the authority administratively higher to the appointing authority have passed orders of suspension under rule 17(e) on the members of the State Services, they may exercise the power to impose the penalty specified in item (ix) in rule 8 on such members.” (Vide G.O.Ms.No.19, P&AR(N) Department, dated 11.2.2008) (w.e.f.11.2.2008) 10. As per the Amended Rule, the immediate higher authority is empowered to institute the disciplinary proceedings against the officials including the State Services Officers, proceed with the enquiry and place the entire records before the competent authority, namely, the 1st respondent in the present case for passing appropriate final orders in the departmental disciplinary proceedings. 11. The next question would be, whether the 3rd respondent is the next higher authority to the Post of Chief Civil Surgeon, in which, the writ petitioner is working. 12. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the Post of Chief Civil Surgeon as well as the Joint Director of Medical Services are equivalent cadres. Both the Posts are interchangeable. The Chief Civil Surgeon / Medical officer is posted as Joint Director of Medical Services. The writ petitioner as Chief Civil Surgeon is not supposed to report to the Joint Director of Medical Services. Thus, for all purposes, the Post of Chief Civil Surgeon and the Joint Director of Medical Services are equivalent cadres and same rank. Thus, by invoking Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, it is to be held that the 3rd respondent is an incompetent authority under the Rules to issue charge memo to the Chief Civil Surgeon. 13. In order to ascertain the fact regarding the equivalence of these two posts namely, the Joint Director of Medical Services and the Chief Civil Surgeon, this Court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get further instructions. The staff of the Medical Department assisted the learned Special Government Pleader and he also produced certain records. 14. It is stated in the counter affidavit that in G.O.(Ms).No.19, P&AR(N) Department dated 11.02.2008, Rule 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules has been amended and powers have been delegated to all authorities directly higher to the members holding the posts included in the State Services to frame charges against such members of the State services. 14. It is stated in the counter affidavit that in G.O.(Ms).No.19, P&AR(N) Department dated 11.02.2008, Rule 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules has been amended and powers have been delegated to all authorities directly higher to the members holding the posts included in the State Services to frame charges against such members of the State services. Hence, the 3rd respondent herein is empowered to frame charges against the petitioner. After conducting the regular inquiry in the disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary case will be remitted to the first respondent along with the inquiry report for further action and to issue of final orders in the matter. Thus, the charge memo issued by the third respondent is in order and in accordance with the Rule 12, which was amended. 15. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents disputed the contentions that the Post of Joint Director of Medical / Health Services and Chief Civil Surgeon are equivalent cadres. The learned Special Government Pleader contended that the Post of Joint Director is a promotional post. 16. The Special Rules relating to the State Services are cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. Category 21 deals with Joint Director of Medical and Rural Health Services and Joint Director of Health Services and the same is reads as follows: Joint Director of Medical and Rural Health Services and Joint Director of Health Services Promotion from among the holders of the post not below the grade of Civil Surgeons in General line. 17. Thus, the Special Rules for State Services itself stipulates that the cadre of Civil Surgeon in general line is the Feeder category for promotion to the Post of Joint Director of Medical and Rural Health Service and Joint Director of Health Services. The Special Rules were amended in G.O.Ms.No.511, Health and Family Welfare (A2) Department dated 01.11.2018. As per the said Amendment, the Cadre of Civil Surgeon in general line is re-designated as Chief Civil Surgeon in general line or Chief Civil Surgeon Specialists. Thus, the Post of Chief Civil Surgeon is the Feeder Category for promotion to the Post of Joint Director of Health Services. 18. It is further contended that in each District, one Post of Joint Director of Heal Services are constituted. In each Government Hospital, one Post of Chief Civil Surgeon is appointed. Thus, the Post of Chief Civil Surgeon is the Feeder Category for promotion to the Post of Joint Director of Health Services. 18. It is further contended that in each District, one Post of Joint Director of Heal Services are constituted. In each Government Hospital, one Post of Chief Civil Surgeon is appointed. In each District, there may be number of Government Hospitals and for example, five or more number of Chief Civil Surgeons will be heading their respective Government Hospitals. All those Chief Civil Surgeons are bound to report to the Joint Director of Health Services as the Joint Director of Health Services is the next higher authority to the Chief Civil Surgeons. Thus, for all purposes, the Joint Director of Health Services is the promotional post to the Post of Chief Civil Surgeons and the Chief Civil Surgeons in the order of seniority are considered for promotion to the Post of Joint Director of Health Services and under these circumstances, the Joint Director of Health Services in the present case is the competent next higher authority with reference to Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service(Discipline and Appeal) Rules and accordingly, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the issuance of the charge memo against the writ petitioner. 19. It is stated that even the earlier charge to the very same writ petitioner was issued by the Joint Director of Health Services and the petitioner had defended the same. Though the said ground may not be relevant for the purpose of considering the legal validity and the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent for issuance of the charge memo. 20. Now, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents cited the Special Rules for State Services, showing that the Post of Joint Director of Health Services shall be filled by way of promotion from among the Post of Holders of not below the Post of Civil Surgeons in general line. 21. The learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioner further contended that the charges are vague. In order to establish the vagueness, the learned Senior counsel cited the judgment in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and the relevant paragraph 23, which reads as under:- “23. 21. The learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioner further contended that the charges are vague. In order to establish the vagueness, the learned Senior counsel cited the judgment in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and the relevant paragraph 23, which reads as under:- “23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.” 22. In the case of Anil Gilurker Vs. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and another, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 379 and the relevant paragraph 14 is extracted hereunder:- “14. This position of law has been reiterated in the recent case of Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar [ (2009) 12 SCC 78 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 129] and in para 35 of the judgment as reported in SCC, this Court has observed that the law can be summarised that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice and the charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges.” 23. In the case of Dr.U.Govindaraj Vs. In the case of Dr.U.Govindaraj Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, reported in 2014 SCC ONLINE MAD 4573 and the relevant paragraphs 10 is extracted hereunder:- “10. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued an order in G.O. (Ms) No. 19, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 11.02.2008, whereby and whereunder, power is delegated to the authorities directly higher to the members holding the posts included in the State Services to frame charges under Rule 17(b), even if they are not the competent authority to impose punishment. The Government Order clearly provides that such higher authorities are competent to conduct enquiry. After completing the disciplinary proceedings, the material papers should be forwarded to the competent authority for passing final orders. The Government have also issued a notification, whereby and whereunder, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were amended. As per the amended Rule, it was provided that in case the appointing authority or the authority administratively higher to the appointing authority have passed orders of suspension under Rule 17(e) on the members of the State Services, it is open to them to exercise the power to impose the penalty also. The amendment came into force on 11 February, 2008.” 24. The learned Senior counsel is of an opinion that in the present case, the Joint Director of Health Services is not a next higher authority and further, the charge memo issued against the writ petitioner are vague and on that ground also, the charges are liable to be scrapped. 25. Let us now extract the charges framed against the writ petitioner. “TAMIL” 26. Annexure-II to the charge memo provides Statement of Allegations, which narrates the entire incident and the details. Annexure-III stipulates the List of Documents relied upon and Annexure-IV denotes the List of Witnesses to be examined. 27. On a perusal of the charge as well as the Statement of allegations or imputations, this Court is of an opinion that there is no ambiguity and the instances are well narrated and the documents are also enclosed and in order to elaborate the allegations, the writ petitioner has to peruse the documents and accordingly, defend her case by availing the opportunities to be provided by the competent authorities. The ground on vagueness cannot be considered, if the Court is of an opinion that the charge memo cannot be proceeded with on the informations provided in the charge memo. If the allegations are so vague, no purpose would be served by allowing the disciplinary authority to proceed with the charge memo, then alone, the power of judicial review can be exercised. 28. However, in the present case, the charges are very much specific and the Statements of allegations regarding the misconducts are also well narrated. This apart, the List of documents and List of Witnesses are also furnished in the impugned charge memo. 29. This being the factum, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the charge memo framed against the writ petitioner. The Judgments cited by the learned Senior counsel is of no avail to the writ petitioner in view of the fact that the charges are clear and capable of being proceeded with. 30. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioner has to defend her case by availing the opportunities and to establish her innocence or otherwise by producing documents and by adducing evidences, if required. Contrarily, the charge memo cannot be quashed on the ground raised by the writ petitioner as there is no infirmity. 31. 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. 32. 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. In the absence of any such legal grounds, no charge memo can be entertained by way of writ petition. 32. 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. 33. 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." 34. 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. 35. 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. 36. In the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in 2012 11 SCC 565 , the Apex Court observed as follows:- “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. 36. In the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in 2012 11 SCC 565 , the Apex Court observed as follows:- “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. 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. 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.” 37. In the case of Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in 2006 12 SCC 28 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, held as follows:- “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. 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. 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.” 38. In view of the fact that the grounds raised by the writ petitioners are untenable and in view of the legal positions discussed above in the aforementioned paragraphs, this Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner has to participate in the enquiry proceedings and defend her case in the manner known to law. The disciplinary authority also should ensure that the departmental disciplinary proceedings are concluded within a reasonable period of time and without causing any delay. Long pendency of the departmental disciplinary proceedings would cause prejudice to the interest of the employees also. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings are to be conducted at the earliest possible and final order is to be passed without any delay. 39. With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.