Disciplinary charge memo cannot be quashed in writ review absent jurisdictional defect, mala fides, or patent illegality.

A disciplinary charge memo alleging production of a bogus certificate and fraudulent promotion was held not liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction, because interference at the charge-sheet stage is confined to exceptional cases such as lack of jurisdiction, incompetence of the issuing authority, mala fides, or patent illegality, and the truth of the allegations must be examined by the disciplinary authority. Interference with the reversion order was also declined in view of the employee's prolonged suspension and the fact that the reversion had not been worked out for years. The disciplinary proceedings were directed to be completed on merits after reasonable opportunity to the employee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the charge memo issued against the employee on allegations of producing a bogus certificate and securing promotion by fraudulent means was liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction; (ii) Whether interference was warranted with the reversion order in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the charge memo issued against the employee on allegations of producing a bogus certificate and securing promotion by fraudulent means was liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The charge memo was supported by statements of allegations and relied upon documents, and the allegations disclosed serious misconduct. Interference at the charge-sheet stage is confined to exceptional cases, such as lack of jurisdiction, incompetence of the issuing authority, mala fides properly pleaded, or patent illegality. The scope of judicial review does not extend to testing the truth of the charges at that stage.

Conclusion: The charge memo was not liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether interference was warranted with the reversion order in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The employee had remained under continuous suspension for a long period, and the impugned reversion had not been worked out for several years. In those circumstances, the Court declined to disturb the reversion order and instead directed that the disciplinary proceedings be taken to their logical conclusion in accordance with the applicable disciplinary procedure.

Conclusion: Interference with the reversion order was declined.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the disciplinary proceedings were directed to be completed on merits after affording reasonable opportunity to the employee.

Ratio Decidendi: A charge memo in disciplinary proceedings is not ordinarily liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction unless it is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction, issued by an incompetent authority, mala fide, or patently illegal; the truth of the allegations must be left to the disciplinary authority.

---