The main legal point established is that a charge memo can only be challenged on limited legal grounds, and the truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to determine.

1. The charge memo issued by the first respondent in proceeding dated 09.11.2012, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner is working as Junior Assistant in the respondent Corporation. On account of certain allegations and based on the statement given by the writ petitioner before the Police in relation to Crime No.162/2012, the charge memo was issued.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner contends that the charge memo itself was framed, only based on the statement given by the writ petitioner before the police and the statements are inadmissible in law and therefore, the same cannot constitute a charge. In other words, the learned counsel is of the opinion that based on the statement given before the Police, the Department cannot frame the charges. The charges can be framed, only in the event of getting concrete evidence, in respect of allegations to be formulated against the writ petitioner. With these contention, the learned counsel is of the opinion that the Department ought not to have framed the charges in advance, even without waiting for the final outcome of the criminal case registered against the petitioner in Crime No.162/2012.

3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents oppose the contentions by stating that charge memo was issued based on the sworn statement given by the writ petitioner before the Police Station and the genuinity or otherwise of the statement, is to be tested by way of departmental enquiry by the officials and the right of the competent authority to enquire into the allegations against the Government employee cannot be disputed. In other words, the learned Additional Advocate General is of the opinion that the State namely, the competent authority has got every right to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee, even on contemplation of charges or if any information is received. If any reliable informations are received against the Government employee, it is the duty of the Disciplinary Authority/ Appointing Authority to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings. The truth or otherwise, ought to have been traced out only by conducting a domestic enquiry. Mere framing of the charge memo, will not be a ground for quashing the same, in the absence of any valid reason. At the outset, it is the duty of the employee concerned, to prove his innocence before the Enquiry Authority.

4. Considering the arguments and counter arguments advanced by the respective learned counsels appearing both for writ petitioner as well as the respondents, this Court is of the view that no writ proceedings can be entertained against a charge memo in a routine manner. A writ against a charge memo can be entertained only on limited grounds and on exceptional circumstances, the writ petition against a charge memo can be entertained, if the charge memo was issued by the incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or if an allegation of malafides are raised against the Disciplinary Authority or if the charge memo is in violation of statutory rules in force. Even in case of raising an allegation of malafides, the authority against whom such an allegation is to be raised has impleaded as party respondent in the personal capacity in the writ proceedings. In the absence of any one of these legal aspects, the judicial review is certainly limited and the Constitutional Courts are to be cautious before entertaining a writ against the charge memo/show cause notice.

5. Intermittent intervention in departmental disciplinary proceedings are not preferable. Disciplinary proceedings initiated against a public servant should be allowed to be completed in all respects in accordance with Rules and the same should reach its logical conclusion. Intermittent intervention by the Courts will cause prejudice to the departmental disciplinary proceedings. In view of the fact that the ultimate object of the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules is to maintain