Writ interference at charge-memo stage is unwarranted where disciplinary allegations require factual inquiry; departmental proceedings may continue.

Where departmental proceedings have already commenced and the disputed allegations depend on factual inquiry, writ interference at the charge-memo stage is unwarranted. The Court found that issues such as the identity of the officers who issued the assessment orders and alleged overwriting in the records could not be conclusively resolved in writ jurisdiction before inquiry. The writ court's interference with the suspension and disciplinary steps was therefore not sustained in full, but the order was modified rather than wholly set aside. The departmental inquiry was allowed to continue, the respondent was permitted to remain in service, and the inquiry authority was directed to conclude the proceeding expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court's interference with the suspension and consequential disciplinary steps at the stage of issuance of charge memo was justified, and whether the appellate court should modify the order while permitting the departmental inquiry to continue.

Analysis: The appeal arose from a challenge to the writ court's interference after only the show-cause notice, articles of charge, and suspension order had been issued in the disciplinary process. The material placed before the Court showed that the allegation required factual examination in inquiry, including the identity of the officers who had issued the assessment orders and the alleged overwriting in the assessment records. The Court accepted that the disciplinary proceeding had already commenced and that the allegations could not be conclusively tested in writ jurisdiction at that stage. At the same time, the Court noticed that the writ petitioner had already been allowed to continue in service after revocation of suspension and that the inquiry ought to be completed fairly and without delay.

Conclusion: The interference made by the writ court was not sustained in full, but the order was modified rather than wholly set aside; the departmental inquiry was permitted to proceed, the respondent was allowed to continue in service, and the inquiry authority was directed to conclude the proceeding expeditiously.

Final Conclusion: The appeal resulted in a limited modification of the writ court's order, preserving the ongoing disciplinary process while maintaining the respondent's service status until further lawful orders.

Ratio Decidendi: When a departmental proceeding has already commenced and the disputed allegations turn on factual matters requiring inquiry, writ interference at the charge memo stage is unwarranted, though the Court may issue directions to ensure a fair and time-bound inquiry.

---