(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in Rc.No.19901/EG1/2015 dated 26.5.2016 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.)

1. The charge memo dated 26.5.2016 issued against the writ petitioner by the first respondent, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner is working as Principal Institute of Ceramic Technology, Vridhachalam in the Department of Industries and Commerce and on account of certain allegations, a charge memo was issued against the writ petitioner.

3. The statement of charges framed against the writ petitioner are extracted hereunder:-

“1. That in the Demand Collection Balance Sheet furnished by him as an Administrative Officer, Government Industrial Estate for Ceramics, Vridhachalam in respect of rental due for the unit M/s. Southern Ceramics and Refractories at Government Industrial Estate for Ceramics, Vridhachalam, he has suddenly increased the opening balance (June 2015) by Rs.1.00 lakh as against the closing balance (May 2015) as detailed below:

Month	Opening Balance (Rs.)	Monthly Demand (Rs.)	Total (Rs.)	Collection	Closing Balance (Rs.)
May 2015	2,23,858	6,636	2,40,494	--	2,40,494
June 2015	3,40,494	6,636	3,47,130	--	3,47,130

      2. That he has failed to furnish the cash receipt and remittance challan for the observations noticed by Joint Director (Chemicals), Guindy during the inspection conducted on 27.6.2014 requested vide his letter No.1321/BC/2014 dated 11.9.2015.

3. By his above act, he has temporarily misappropriated a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh of Government fund.

4. By his above act, he has failed to perform his legitimate duty and thus violated Rule 20 of Government Servants' Conduct Rules.”

4. Annexure-II to the charge memo provides statement of allegations namely the imputations of misconduct, Annexure-III to the charge memo denotes the list of documents relied upon by the Administration. Thus, there is no infirmity, as such, in respect of the charge memo issued against the writ petitioner.

5. On a perusal of the charges, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations are serious in nature, warranting an enquiry.

6. It is left open to the writ petitioner to establish his innocence or otherwise only during the course of enquiry and the charge memo cannot be quashed on merits as stated in the writ petition.

7. The writ petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, submits the explanations in respect of the allegations set out in the charge memo. The High Court cannot adjudicate the merits and the demerits of the allegations set out in the charge memo and provide a finding in this regard. Such complex and disputed facts and circumstances are to be adjudicated only by producing documents and by adducing evidences if required. Thus, the writ petitioner has to establish his innocence or otherwise before the enquiry proceedings and the explanations and the grounds raised regarding the merits cannot be adjudicated in the present writ petition.

8. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the charge memorandum framed against the writ petitioner. 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 capa