JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for entire records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent herein vide R.O.C.No. 6914/2020/RD.4, dated 16.11.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith.)

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned charge memo issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.6914/2020/R.D.4, dated 21.12.2020 and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.)

Commonorder

1. Since the issue involved in both cases are interlinked, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.(MD) No.9045 of 2021 has been filed challenging the suspension order, dated 16.11.2020 and W.P.(MD) No.9045 of 2021 has been filed challenging the charge memo, dated 21.12.2020, issued by the District Collector, Dindigul.

3. The petitioner was working as Panchayat Union Overseer and the impugned charge memo is challenged mainly on the ground that the petitioner is not a decision making authority and therefore, she cannot be held responsible in respect of the allegation of misappropriation of funds, fraud and other allegations.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents made a submission that the involvement of the petitioner into the alleged occurrence is also to be ascertained during the course of enquiry and at this stage, no opinion needs to be formed in respect of the allegations.

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that charge per se would not constitute a cause for moving a writ petition. It remains only as an allegation and such allegations are to be enquired into by affording opportunity to the delinquent officials. In the present case, there are allegations against the petitioner with reference to the misappropriation of funds and fraudulent activities. The petitioner may defend her case by availing the opportunity provided by the Authority competent, contrarily, High Court cannot quash the charge memo at this point of time as it requires an enquiry to be conducted in the manner known to law.

6. A charge memo is not liable to be quashed as it does not adversely affect the rights of an employee and does not give rise to any cause of action. A writ lies only when some rights of a person are infringed. The charge memo does not infringe the rights of a person / employee. It is only when a final order imposing punishment or otherwise is passed, it may give a cause of action. Thus, the writ petition challenging the charge memo by itself is not maintainable.

7. Let us now consider the situations where an employee is issued with a charge memo. On initiation of disciplinary proceedings, charge memo is the first step taken by the Authority concerned to frame certain charges against the employee concerned. Mere framing of charges would not cause any prejudice to the Government employee. The employee is duty bound to establish his innocence or otherwise with reference to the documents and evidences available. Contrarily, if the disciplinary proceedings are quashed at the budding stage, the rights of the Departments will be prejudiced. Under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, a Government servant is bound to maintain a good conduct and integrity throughout his service both inside and outside the office. While so, certain allegations are brought to the notice of the competent Authorities. They are initiating action under the Rules and they are framing charges. Such framing of charges would not cause any prejudice nor provide any cause of action for the purpose of instituting a writ petition. Therefore, framing of charges itself would not provide a cause of action for entertaining a writ petition. However, a writ petition against the ch