ORDER : Pulla Karthik, J. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein more particularly the 2 nd respondent in issued the impugned Charge Memo. Rc.No.5506/VC-A/2024, dated 24- 12-2024, after 18 years from the date of incident without any basis and also in contrary to the Proceedings Rc.No.2762/E2/MS/DM&HO/ Nzb/2013, dated 30-5-2014 issued by the than 4th respondent and also in violation of Rule 20 [3] of CCA Rules, as the charge memo is very vague, baseless and not specific and consequentially the Hon’ble Court may pleased to set aside the impugned charge Memo. Dated 30-5-2014, with a further direction to the respondent to promote the petitioner as Asst. Director [Admn] as per the final eligibility list of Administrative Officers, prepared vide Proc. No.3080/GAD/MZ- I/2024, dated 28-10-2024 and may pass…” 2. Heard Sri M.R. Tagore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 30.07.1999, and was subsequently, promoted as Senior Assistant, Superintendent and Administrative Officer on 18.11.2006, 30.04.2018 and 01.09.2022, respectively, and while working as Administrative Officer in the Government College of Nursing, Nizamabad, respondent No.2, vide proceedings dated 28.10.2024, called for the service particulars of (33) eligible Administrative Officers for their promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Admn). The petitioner’s name was placed at Sl.No.17 in the said list, and at present, there are about (20) vacancies available in the cadre of Assistant Director (Admn) in Multi Zone-I, and later, vide proceedings dated 05.11.2024, the Principal of Government School of Nursing, Nizamabad, submitted the service particulars of the petitioner, including no charges certificate. As such, the petitioner is fully qualified, eligible and entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Admn). Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Rt.No.92 dated 05.03.2025, constituting a Departmental Promotion Committee for effecting promotions. However, while the petitioner’s case for promotion was under active consideration, she was issued with the impugned Charge Memo dated 24.12.2024 by respondent No.2, on the vague and baseless allegations of misconduct, illegality, cheating, corruption, theft of service register, original personal file and service documents of one deceased Government employee, Late Md. However, while the petitioner’s case for promotion was under active consideration, she was issued with the impugned Charge Memo dated 24.12.2024 by respondent No.2, on the vague and baseless allegations of misconduct, illegality, cheating, corruption, theft of service register, original personal file and service documents of one deceased Government employee, Late Md. Ishaque, MPHA (M), CHC, Dharpalli. 4. It is submitted that the aforesaid allegations have arisen out of the incidents allegedly occurred almost (18) years ago, but the charge memo has been issued against the petitioner belatedly. Despite the same, the petitioner submitted her detailed explanation, on 17.01.2025, denying the charge. It is also submitted that the allegation leveled against the petitioner is wholly false and baseless. The petitioner, while working as Senior Assistant, was transferred and posted at the office of the DMHO vide proceedings dated 07.07.2012. Accordingly, she joined duty on 13.07.2012, and was allotted to ‘E5’ section, which contained the files pertaining to the MPHA (M) and MPHS (M) working at CHC, Dharpalli. However, the existing Senior Assistant, Mr. Lateefuddin Mujahed, failed to handover the charge to the petitioner, and therefore, she submitted her representation dated 30.07.2012. As such, on 06.08.2012, in the presence of the then Administrative Officer, Mr. P. Devasahayam, and Office Superintendent, Mr. N. Rajeswara Rao, total of (235) employees’ files were handed over to the petitioner. However, the subject file of the deceased employee, Late Mohd. Ishaque, was not available among the said files. It was submitted that the said individual has been absconding from duties from 15.08.1985 to 31.08.2006 (deemed date of retirement), and even prior to the transfer and posting of the petitioner to CHC, Dharpalli, the file of the deceased was not available in ‘E5’ section. As such, neither the petitioner nor her predecessor had the possession of the file belonging to the deceased. 5. It was further submitted that the petitioner was subsequently shifted from ‘E5’ Section vide proceedings dated 10.10.2014, and she had handed over the charge to Mr. K. Praveen Kumar, Junior Assistant, on 10.11.2014, without any files pending with her. As such, the petitioner, who worked at the ‘E5’ Section from 30.07.2014 to 10.11.2014, had no allegations or remarks against her, and thereafter, she was promoted as Office Superintendent and Administrative Officer. K. Praveen Kumar, Junior Assistant, on 10.11.2014, without any files pending with her. As such, the petitioner, who worked at the ‘E5’ Section from 30.07.2014 to 10.11.2014, had no allegations or remarks against her, and thereafter, she was promoted as Office Superintendent and Administrative Officer. However, while her name is under active consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, the respondents have issued the present impugned Charge Memo dated 24.12.2024 after (18) years of the alleged incident, intentionally to deprive her of the legitimate right of promotion as Assistant Director, which is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to set aside the impugned Charge Memo dated 24.12.2024, with a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Admn) as per the eligibility list dated 28.10.2024. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the departmental records indicate that the subject file of late Md. Ishaque, MPHA (M), went missing during the tenure of the petitioner and her predecessors only. As such, in view of the said disappearance of the original service records, and suspicion of manipulation of documents and allegations of corruption, based on the specific directions of the Government, and the Vigilance and Enforcement Report, the present Charge Memo dated 24.12.2024 has been issued against the petitioner. However, the delay, as alleged by the petitioner, is purely due to the complexity of the issue and the administrative difficulties in collecting the data, not attributable to the Departmental alone. It was further submitted that petitioner’s explanation to the Charge Memo, dated 17.01.2025, has been received and after considering the same, it has been decided to forward it to respondent No.1 Office, for the appointment of an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges framed against the individuals involved in the said incident. It was further submitted that mere promotions do not entitle an automatic exemption from the disciplinary action, especially, when the allegations relate to serious irregularities like corruption, etc. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 7. It was further submitted that mere promotions do not entitle an automatic exemption from the disciplinary action, especially, when the allegations relate to serious irregularities like corruption, etc. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 7. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of material on record, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition concerns two distinct reliefs, i.e., quashing of Charge Memo dated 24.12.2024, and a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Admn). 8. It is pertinent to note that the charge leveled against the petitioner vide Charge Memo dated 24.12.2024, pertains to the alleged irregularities concerning the disappearance of service records of one late Md. Ishaque, MPHA (M), CHC, Dharpalli. The said charge is extracted hereunder: “That Smt.B.Amrutha, formerly Senior Assistant O/o. DM & HO, Nizamabad presently working as Administrative Officer at Government School of Nursing, Nizamabad District, gross misconduct / Service, illegality / cheating / corruption and theft of service Register, original personal file and service documents of deceased Govt. Employee of late Mohd Ishaque, MPHA (M), CHC, Dharpalli. Thereby, she failed to maintain absolute integrity, discipline and devotion to duty and exhibited behavior unbecoming of a Government Servant and violated Rule 3-B of TSCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” 9. According to the petitioner, the alleged incident had occurred almost eighteen years before the issuance of said Charge Memo; that she was never in the custody of the subject file; and that she had duly handed over charge, when she was transferred from the concerned section in the year 2014. However, the petitioner contends that the impugned Charge Memo has been issued at a highly belated stage, only to deprive her of the right to promotion as Assistant Director (Admn). 10. It is well-settled that the scope of judicial review in matters concerning disciplinary proceedings is very limited, more particularly, challenge to a charge memo is considered premature, since it only the first step in the disciplinary proceedings, which may not be interfered with by this Court unless the same is issued by an authority that lacks the jurisdiction or is ex facie unsustainable. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana , [ (2006) 12 SCC 28 ] , has categorically held that no writ lies against a charge memo or show- cause notice, unless some rare and exceptional circumstances are made out. The relevant portion is 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. 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. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.” 11. In the instant case, although the charge memo has been issued belatedly after almost (18) years of occurrence of the incident, this delay, inter alia may not render the charge memo as invalid, as the nature of alleged against the petitioner is serious and grave. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has also submitted her explanation dated 17.01.2025, and it is within the domain of the disciplinary authority to consider the said explanation, and only thereafter, take a decision whether to proceed further or not, as it deems it fit and proper. Therefore, this Court finds not justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned Charge Memo dated 24.12.2024. 12. As regards the relief with respect to her promotion, it is relevant to note that the petitioner’s name was included at Sl.No.17 in the eligibility list dated 28.10.2024 and the Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted under G.O.Rt.No.92 dated 05.03.2025. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner is fully qualified and eligible for promotion. However, the only ground for not considering her case is the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court have consistently held that in matters, where disciplinary action is initiated belatedly, the case of an employee for promotion shall not be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of the said disciplinary proceedings, particularly when such delay in initiation of proceedings is not attributable to the employee. 14. In view of the above, this Court deems appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion without reference to the pendency of Charge Memo. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Admn) as per the final eligibility list of Administrative Officers dated 28.10.2024, during the ensuing promotion counseling, without reference to the pendency of Charge Memo in Rc.No.5506/VC-A/2024/7220 dated 24.12.2024. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.