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 certi