JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to impugned proceedings dated 02.02.2015 in Na.Ka.No.71098-L1/2014 of the first respondent and to quash the same.) 1. The charge memo dated 02.02.2015 issued against the writ petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and on account of certain allegations, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The writ petitioner filed two writ petitions, one challenging the order of suspension and another challenging the charge memorandum. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the order of suspension was revoked and he was reinstated into service and therefore, the writ petition filed, challenging the order of suspension in W.P.No.4204 of 2015 was closed by this Court. 3. With reference to the present writ petition, the charges against the writ petitioner is that he has included certain ineligible persons to avail the Government benefits under the scheme contemplated by the Government. The other charges are that the petitioner has taken away the signed cheques unauthorizedly and he assisted the beneficiaries from purchasing Goats from other Districts, which is otherwise impermissible under the scheme. The impugned charge memorandum provides statement of allegations and imputations of misconduct. Annexure - III stipulates the list of documents and Annexure-IV provides list of witnesses. There is no infirmity as such in the charge memorandum, which is otherwise in accordance with the rules in force. 4. The petitioner on issuance of the impugned charge memorandum, has chosen to file the writ petition. The grounds raised in the writ petition are with reference to the Government Orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner can demonstrate the nature of the allegations, which all are otherwise untenable. The petitioner pursuant to the interim order granted in the other writ petition filed challenging the order of suspension, submitted his explanation, denying the charges. However, the respondents have not proceeded with the departmental disciplinary proceedings. 5. The grounds raised on merits cannot be adjudicated by this Court in a writ proceedings as it involves examination of documents and evidences. Such an elaborate adjudication cannot be done in a writ proceedings. However, the respondents have not proceeded with the departmental disciplinary proceedings. 5. The grounds raised on merits cannot be adjudicated by this Court in a writ proceedings as it involves examination of documents and evidences. Such an elaborate adjudication cannot be done in a writ proceedings. The procedures to be followed for conducting a departmental disciplinary proceedings are contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, which is to be followed by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend his case. Contrarily, the High Court cannot entertain a writ petition for the purpose of adjudicating the merits involved in the charges. Thus, the very ground raised by the writ petitioner in this regard deserves no merit consideration. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner has already submitted an explanation long back and the respondents have not proceeded with the enquiry and therefore, he is deprived of his other service benefits. 7. The learned Government advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, objected the said contention by stating that on initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter, the charge memorandum was issued. Instead of defending his case before the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner has filed the writ petition and therefore, the department is not responsible for the delay in conclusion of the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Though the petitioner submitted an explanation to the charge memorandum, he kept the writ petition pending and therefore, the authorities could not able to conclude the proceedings. However, the petitioner was reinstated into service by revoking the order of suspension. 8. No writ against a charge memorandum is entertainable in a routine manner. A writ against a charge memorandum is entertainable only on certain exceptional circumstances, where, the charges are tainted with the allegation of malafides or the charge memorandum has been issued by an incompetent authority. Though the writ petitioner has raised an allegation of malafides, such allegations are relatable to the facts and circumstances and this cannot be construed as an official malice, wherein, the Court can interfere. Even to form an opinion in this regard, an enquiry is required. Unless the facts and circumstances are adjudicated with reference to the materials available on record, the said allegations cannot be established. 9. Even to form an opinion in this regard, an enquiry is required. Unless the facts and circumstances are adjudicated with reference to the materials available on record, the said allegations cannot be established. 9. Therefore, this Court is of an opinion that the petitioner has to participate in the process of enquiry for the purpose of defending his case and to establish his innocence. Contrarily, the High Court cannot adjudicate such disputed facts. 10. No doubt, the competent disciplinary authority on initiation of disciplinary proceedings, are expected to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible without causing any delay. However, in the present case, the writ petitions are kept pending for about seven days and therefore, the respondents have taken a stand that they could not able to conclude the proceedings. Though the writ petitioner submitted his explanation, he has not chosen to withdraw the writ petition and participate in the proceedings. On account of the pendency of the writ petition, the department also has not proceeded with. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the charge memorandum issued against the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 02.02.2015 and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitioner is directed to co-operate for the early disposal of the disciplinary proceedings. In the event of non-cooperation on the part of the writ petitioner, the same may be recorded by the disciplinary authority and in such circumstances, the writ petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief of exoneration or quashing of the charge memorandum on the ground of non-compliance of the orders of this Court. 12. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.