The writ petitioner, then a First Grade Assistant in the service of the first respondent Food Corporation of India, had to perform his duties, which included the briefing of the Standing Counsel for the FCI before this Court. As part of his duties and responsibilities, he, according to him, attended the office of the Standing Counsel of the FCI at Ernakulam on the 12th, 13th, 14th, 19th and 20th of March, 1994. On such basis, he placed his Travelling Allowance and Dearness Allowance bills. He also drew the allowances.

2. The employer first respondent, through its supervisory officers, came to a tentative view that the claim for TA and other amounts was not transparent. They termed it as a case of cheating the employer. This resulted in disciplinary proceedings. The competent authority ordered a domestic inquiry. The disciplinary proceedings culminated in the imposition of penalty of barring of three increments. Challenge to that within the realm of administrative hierarchy failed. Hence this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after having taken me through different aspects of the case on facts, merits and evidence, ultimately urged that Ext.P4 certificate issued by the Standing Counsel regarding the attendance of the petitioner in the office of the Standing Counsel ought not to have been brushed aside but ought to have been relied on as a credible material. He further urged that if it were the intention of the petitioner to cheat and make unlawful gain, the modus operandi would have been different. He also argued that the information allegedly obtained by the employer FCI from the Southern Railways was not proved in the enquiry and the generation of that communication is shadowed. This is said by pointing out that the communication by the Southern Railways to the FCI does not appear to be an official one, but was apparently a confidential one in the name cover of a superior officer in the FCI viz. Sri. Narayanan Moosath. It is also pointed out that the disciplinary authority with the findings of the enquiry officer as far as the second charge is concerned.

4. Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner vis-à-vis the submissions on behalf of the FCI by the Standing Counsel, it has to be first noticed that no case of personal bias, malice or malafides is alleged as against the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority as such.

5. Along with memo of charges was an appendix, which enlisted seven documents. The case against the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that the Railway tickets which he held out as used by him for travel from Palakkad to Ernakulam on 12th and 19th were tickets which were issued by the Railways only on 13th and 20th of March, 1994 respectively. The next aspect of the case is that though he presented only tickets for travel by First Class, he claimed TA by Second Class A/c tickets which are costlier than First Class tickets. Though such claim and drawal of TA and other allowances for the Second Class A/c tickets were made, the materials did not include any evidence of the alleged conversion of the First Class tickets to Second Class A/c tickets as claimed by the petitioner.

6. The petitioner was put to notice of the materials being considered in the enquiry. He was admittedly given an opportunity to place his defence and meet the accusation. He also examined two defence witnesses to prove his case that he had reached Ernakulam on the 12th and 19th respectively. He also pressed into service a certificate, which is produced before this Court as Ext.P4, issued by the then Standing Counsel of FCI certifying that the petitioner had attended the office of the Standing Counsel on the 12th, 13th and 14th of March, 1994.

7. However, glaring at him were the communications given by the competent officers of the Southern Railways, which categorically show that the ticket numbers relied on by the petitioner to claim TA were actually issued only on the 13th and 20th of M