The writ petition is directed against the charge memo issued to the petitioner by the second respondent in his proceedings No. 10455/VI/2010 dated 3. 2010.

2. The brief facts relevant herein are set down as follows: The petitioner joined in the service of the first respondent Registration Department as Sub Registrar during 1975 and he was promoted as District Registrar during 1987 and the petitioner was, on the date of his suspension vide G.O. (2D). No. 36 and on the date of issuance of charge memo dated 13. 2010 impugned herein, serving in the cadre of Assistant Inspector General of Registration Coimbatore Zone. The impugned charge memo contains single charge framed under Section 17(b) to the effect, that the petitioner was in the course of his tenure as District Registrar (AIG cadre, Vellore) between 1998-2002 adopted lesser value than the prescribed guide line value in respect of some of the properties thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs. 1,64,832/- to the Government and the same is in contravention amounting to misconduct under Rule 21 of Tamil Nadu Government (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules. The validity of such Charge memo is questioned herein on the ground as follows: 1. There is-long and inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings. 2. The charge is vague non-specific and baseless.

3. The charge relate to the discharge of quasi judicial functions, the improper valuation of the property in question in the course of such discharge of quasi judicial function amounts to error of judgment and cannot without any allegations of mala fide corruption ill-motive or culpable negligence would not constitute misconduct to form basis for any Disciplinary Proceedings.

4. If Disciplinary Proceedings in respect of the charge memo is permitted to go on it will be prejudicial to the public interest particularly to the interest of the employee that too after the employee reached age of superannuation and

5. The impugned charge memo is tainted with mala fide bias and illegality. 3. Whereas the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, vehemently oppose the claim both in law, and on facts. The first legal objection raised is that the writ petition against the show cause notice is not maintainable and the remedy available to the charged officer is to go before the disciplinary authority by way of his explanation and he is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the show cause notice and the writ petition is premature in nature. The official respondents have also denied the factual objections regarding the question of delay, vagueness and mala fide nature of the charges etc., 4. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader hve placed their rival submissions at length in the light of the documents available in the typed set of papers and in the light of catena of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and our High Court for and against the submissions so made. 5. For the sake of proper appreciation of the relief and the ground on which the same is sought for in this writ petition, it is but necessary for this Court to deal with the objection raised for and against the charge memo together.

6. Before going into the validity of the charge memo on merits the 1st aspect to be considered is the maintainability of the writ petition against the impugned charge memo. It is true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the authorities in (1) in State of U.P. v. Brahni Datt Sharma and Another AIR 1987 SC 943: (1987) 2 SCC 179 and (2) in Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Sathyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28 categorically held that mere charge sheet or show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action because it die3s not amount to adverse order which affects the right of any party and it is quite possible the authority concerned may after considering the show cause notice or after holdin