The petitioner at the relevant time in 1992 was a Travelling Ticket Examiner in the Indian Railways. The respondent No. 8 at that time was a Head Ticket Collector. 2. As a Travelling Ticket Examiner, the petitioner was not entitled to a railway accommodation of Type-III but was en titled only to a Type-II accommodation. 3. The dispute arose when the petitioner occupied without allotment a type-III railway accommodation allegedly by virtue of an exchange of accommoda tion by mutual consent with another rail way employee Sri M. M. Sharma. 4. Their petitioner has filed as an-nexure-3 to the writ petition an order of policy dated 16-2-1983 to which learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention in an attempt to justify that rail way employee can be permitted to occupy railway accommodation higher than his entitlement by paying additional rent. In that very document it has been specifically clarified that where allotment of a higher type of quarter is to be made to an employee the personal sanction of the Divisional Railway Manager will have to be obtained. 5. In view of the admitted fact in the present case there is no personal sanction of the Divisional Railway Manager, we are of the opinion that the petitioner had no right to occupy type-III accommodation whether by mutual consent or by allot ment. 6. Faced with the situation, the petitioner has based his claim upon a com munication dated 15-7-1993 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition ). This communication is from the Railway Board to the Chief Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi and it says that on the basis of a representation dated 26-6-1993 from the wife of the petitioner it has been desired that the occupation by the petitioner if Type-III accommodation may be regularised. Although it has not been stated in the said letter as to who has desired the same, but, it is admitted case of the parties that this was the desire of the then Minister of State for Railways. 7. A copy of the representation dated 26-6-1993 of the wife of the petitioner which is the basis of desire has been filed as Annexure-2 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Railways. 7. A copy of the representation dated 26-6-1993 of the wife of the petitioner which is the basis of desire has been filed as Annexure-2 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Railways. A perusal of the said application says that several preced ing events-which were very material and relevant on the issue have not been men tioned and have been concealed in the application dated 26-6-1993. If this ap plication had been moved by the petitioner disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against him for concealment of material facts while approaching the higher authority, namely, the Minister for favourable orders. However, since the rep resentation is by the wife of the petitioner no such action can be taken. 8. We, therefore, feel that the departmental authorities should not act upon the application or representation of persons other than concerned employee in any matter relating to official business. 9. The order dated 15-7-1993 has now become the sheet-anchor of the case of the petitioner. According to petitioner, the desire contained in the letter dated 15-7-1993 is binding and no subordinate authority or officer can refuse to comply with the said order. Apart from the fact, that, as stated above, the order dated 15-7-1993 has been obtained by concealment of material facts by the wife of the petitioner, we have also seen that in the proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Union of India was a parry and the stand taken by the department before the Tribunal was that the order dated 15-7- 1993 was not capable of im plementation as the Type-Ill accommoda tion had already been allotted to the respondent No. 8. We are satisfied that the reasons given by the respondents are suffi cient and the order dated 15-7-1993 did not require any further action. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised an objection as to the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Railway Officers had been directed to obtain the possession of the disputed ac commodation from the petitioner and hand over the possession to the respon dent No. 8 within three months. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised an objection as to the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Railway Officers had been directed to obtain the possession of the disputed ac commodation from the petitioner and hand over the possession to the respon dent No. 8 within three months. Accord ing to learned counsel for the petitioner the proceedings for the eviction of the petitioner are pending before the Prescribed Authority under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Oc cupants) Act, 1971 and, therefore, the Tribunal should have relegated the parties to the said proceedings instead of issuing such a direction. The Tribunal was dealing with two cases one by the petitioner seek ing continuation in the disputed accom modation and regularisation of his oc cupation and the other by the respondent No. 8 seeking possession of the disputed accommodation on the strength of the al lotment of the said accommodation in favour of the respondent No. 8. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has acted beyond jurisdiction in issuing that direction. Further in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal and also by us, the petitioner has no right to continue in the accommodation in dispute. Therefore, we interpret the order of the Tribunal as a direction to the Prescribed Authority to complete the proceedings within the said period of three months so that the posses sion of the accommodation is handed over to the rightful claimant, namely, the respondent No. 8. 10. The only remaining point pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding disciplinary proceeding to be initiated against the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner cer tain decision of this Tribunal have held that mere refusal to vacate Government accommodation does not amount to a misconduct and cannot therefore be the subject-matter of the disciplinary proceeding. We have not examined this question because that stage has not yet come. It is open to the petitioner to raise all these questions before the disciplinary authority. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Petition dismissed. .