Engaging in business while under suspension and providing false certificates violated the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, and rendered the petitioner ineligible for subsistence allowance.

SANJAY YADAV, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19.9.2003 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur; whereby, by common order Transferred Application Nos. 14/2000 and 3/2002 were dismissed. Transferred Application No. 14/2000 was directed against the order dated 13.2.1992 and 26.5.1993 whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension and his subsistence allowance was stopped; whereas vide T.A. No. 3/2002 petitioner challenged the order dated 30.9.1993; whereby service of the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Relevant facts briefly are that, the petitioner after being medically boarded out from the rank of Naib Subedar, Indian Army was reappointed as upper Division Clerk in Regional Medical Research Centre for Tribals, a Unit of Indian Council for Medical Research. On 13.2.1992 in contemplation of a departmental enquiry the petitioner was placed under suspension. While under suspension, a complaint was received that the petitioner with under suspension has been engaged in business of flour mill in the name of Prakash Flour Mill, Ranjhi and was submitting wrong certificate of his non-employment or non-engagement in any business. The same resulted in passing of order dated 26.5.1993; whereby, the subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner was stopped forth-with. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 27.5.1993 whereby two charges were leveled against him; viz., (i) that, being legally bound under service Rules not to engage in trade or business, unlawfully, without permission engaged himself in the business of flour mills; and (ii) after his suspension willfully furnished false certificate that he is not engaged in any trade/business/profession, while he was in fact, engaged in the above business of flour mills. The said conduct was alleged to be in violation of Rules 3 and 15 (1) (a) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

3. Departmental enquiry was conducted into the charge leveled against the petitioner which culminated in an order dated 30.9.1993; whereby, petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from service. There against the petitioner preferred an appeal which was decided on 31.3.1994 and the punishment of dismissal was modified to that of removal from service. Being aggrieved by the orders of suspension, stoppage of subsistence allowance and removal from service petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court vide W.P. No. 2253/1993 and 809/1994 which were transferred to the Tribunal and were re-registered as T.A. No. 14/2000 and T.A. No. 3/2002 and were decided by composite order dated 19th September 2003; whereby, both the petitions preferred by the petitioner were dismissed. Being aggrieved petitioner has filed this petition challenging the composite order passed by the Tribunal.

4. Petitioner reiterated argument put-forth before the Tribunal that (i) petitioner could not have been proceeded in more than one proceeding; (ii) that the person who lodged complaint regarding false certificate of non-employment was not examined in the departmental enquiry; (iii) that the document Annexure A-7 dated 1.4.1988 said to be the permission granted by the competent authority to retain the flour mill was not taken into consideration; (iv) that, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the prosecution witness and (v) that he was not given an opportunity to engage a defence assistant. Elaborate submissions were put-forth by the petitioner to substantiate the aforesaid contentions by referring to documents on record.

5. It is contended that, the petitioner has been victimized as he was witness in one of the cases against the employees of Regional Medical Research Centre. It is contended that, the departmental enquiry which was initiated against the petitioner was premeditated and was merely an eyewash as no effective opportunity to defend himself was given to the petitioner as the ven