O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pass final orders on the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner through Charge Memo dated

18.12.2014, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

2.Heard Mr.V.Vijayashankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3.The petitioner had already filed W.P.(MD)No.21224 of 2014 challenging the impugned Charge Memo dated 18.12.2014. The writ petition was taken up for final hearing by this Court and the following order was passed:

3.Annexure-II to the charge memo provides list of documents and the allegations set out in the charge memo are undoubtedly serious in nature, warranting a detailed enquiry. Thus, there is no infirmity in the charge memo and the writ petitioner instead of participating in the process of enquiry to establish his innocence or otherwise, has chosen to file this Writ Petition, mainly on the ground that he was performing the duties and responsibilities, as a quasi judicial authority and therefore, no charge memo can be issued against him.

4.This Court as well the Hon'ble Apex Court repeatedly held that the quasi judicial authorities are also amenable to departmental disciplinary proceedings. Even while functioning as quasi judicial authority, if there is any dereliction, negligence, misconduct or financial loss are identified, the competent authorities are empowered to conduct an enquiry and cull out the truth, regarding the incident and thereafter, take a decision on merits and in accordance with law. There is no absolute exemption for the quasi judicial authorities from the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the ground raised that the writ petitioner was performing duties and responsibilities of quasi judicial authority, is of no avail to him

5.The writ petitioner was holding the responsible post in the cadre of District Registrar. Thus, he has to perform his duties and responsibilities with utmost care and devotion of duty. During the course of the performance, if any negligence, misconduct and financial loss are identified, then all suitable actions are to be initiated against him. The legal principles in this regard are settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in many decisions.

6.Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Writ Petition filed challenging the charge memo, cannot be entertained. The writ petitioner has to participate in the process of enquiry and establish his innocence or otherwise by producing document and adducing evidence, if required.

7.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 capacity. In the absence of any such legal grounds, no charge memo can be entertained by way of writ petition.

8.Intermittent intervention in the disciplinary proceedings is not preferable. However, only on exceptional circumstances, this Court can issue a direction against the proceedings and not in a routine manner. Mere issuance of a call letter to the writ petitioner, directing him to participate in the domestic enquiry will not give any cause of action to move this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the writ petit