S. R. ALAM, J. ( 1 ) INSTANT Special Appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated july 31, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 24401 of 1989 dismissing the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE short fact of the case is that the petitioner-appellant was working as a Clerk since september, 1971 in Nagar Palika, Bindki, district Fatehpur. He was, however, suspended on 19. 5. 1988 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Accordingly, charge-sheet dated 23. 9. 1988 containing two charges viz. (i) that at several places in the town unauthorised constructions are being made without getting the approval of the plan and he has not taken any effective steps in the matter on account of which constructions are being made on nazul land without obtaining any approval, (ii) that certain queries were made in respect of the construction of "paushala" which he did not comply on account of which the construction of the said "paushala" is delayed, was served upon him, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He accordingly submitted his reply to the charges on 24. 9. 1988 a copy whereof is annexure-2 to the writ petition. However, during the pendency of the proceeding additional charge dated 3. 5. 1989 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) was served on him on 9. 5. 1989 alleging several other charges of indiscipline and irregularities causing financial loss to the Municipal board and he was called upon to give his written defence against the charges on or before 18. 5. 1989. He did not submit his reply within the time but on 24. 5. 1989 sought 15 days further time to submit his reply which was granted, even then he did not submit his reply. He, however, sent an application on 6. 6. 1989 through post stating that he is hospitalized in the Government hospital for treatment and will submit his reply after getting cured, which was received on 9. 6. 1989. The inquiry officer after waiting for about three months submitted his report on 1. 9. 1989 holding him guilty of the charges. He, however, after submission of the report, submitted his reply on 14. 9. 1989 but in the meanwhile, he was served with the show cause notice dated 11. 9. 1989 proposing as to why his services be not terminated. 9. 1989 holding him guilty of the charges. He, however, after submission of the report, submitted his reply on 14. 9. 1989 but in the meanwhile, he was served with the show cause notice dated 11. 9. 1989 proposing as to why his services be not terminated. He accordingly submitted his reply to the show cause notice on September 30, 1989, a copy of which is enclosed as annexure-6 to the writ petition. The disciplinary authority having considered the reply of the petitioner-appellant by the impugned order terminated his services vide order dated 8. 11. 1989, a copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Aggrieved, the petitioner-appellant preferred writ Petition No. 24401 of 1989 which was heard and dismissed by the order under appeal dated 31. 7. 1996. ( 3 ) SHRI Ashok Khare, learned counsel appearing for the appellant made two submissions in support of the appeal. Firstly, that during the period of suspension the respondents did not pay any subsistence allowance, which amount to violation of the principles of natural justice and on account of its non-payment, the whole proceeding stood vitiated and deserves to be quashed. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and Anr. , 1999 (3) SCC 679 , and in the case of ghanshyam Dass Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 1183 , wherein it has been held that the proceeding before the inquiry officer would be vitiated and the final order of the appointing authority cannot sustain if on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance the delinquent employee could not appear in the inquiry proceeding. The second submission is that in the departmental proceeding, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend the charges in the proceeding and the inquiry officer proceeded ex parte. It is contended that the learned single Judge did not appreciate the aspect of the nonpayment of the subsistence allowance and without taking into account the fact that the enquiry proceeding against the appellant admittedly was held ex parte, dismissed the writ petition. The main thrust of his submission is that on account of nonpayment of subsistence allowance, the petitioner-appellant could not participate in the proceeding and, therefore, he has been punished in total violation of principles of natural justice. The main thrust of his submission is that on account of nonpayment of subsistence allowance, the petitioner-appellant could not participate in the proceeding and, therefore, he has been punished in total violation of principles of natural justice. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellant is guilty of serious lapses and on account of his connivance, several unauthorized constructions have been made without obtaining approval or sanction of the plan. It is submitted that the petitioner being Map Clerk, it was his duty to submit report about unauthorized constructions but he deliberately did not bring the matter to the notice of the authorities for taking steps to stop such Illegal constructions being made within the area of the Municipality. It is further argued that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the appellant-petitioner but he did not participate in the proceeding and, therefore, the inquiry officer had no option but to proceed ex parte. ( 5 ) IN the writ petition, there is no averment to the effect that on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance, the petitioner could not participate in the proceeding. The statement regarding non-payment of subsistence allowance is made in para 9 of the writ petition which is as under : that the respondent No. 1 without applying its mind to the facts of the case, illegally issued a show cause notice dated 11. 9. 1989 proposing as to why the petitioners services, be not terminated. A true copy of the show cause notice along with the finding of inquiry officer is attached herewith and marked, as Annexure-5 to this writ petition. It is very pertinent to mention here, that the petitioner has not been paid his T. A. and D. A. , since during the period of 1987 and-1988 and suspension allowance, during the suspension period that is 19. 5. 1988 to 8. 11. 1989. " ( 6 ) REPLY to the aforesaid statement has been given in para-12 of the counter-affidavit, which is as under: "that the contents of paragraph 9 of the writ petition are wrong and denied. In reply, it is stated that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner after waiting for a considerable time for reply of the charge-sheet, though originally the time expired on 6. 6. 1989. In reply, it is stated that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner after waiting for a considerable time for reply of the charge-sheet, though originally the time expired on 6. 6. 1989. It has wrongly been stated in the paragraph under reply that the petitioner has not been paid the T. A. , D. A. and subsistence allowance during the suspension period, in fact, under the rules the petitioner did not give any certificate that he is not employed anywhere. " ( 7 ) IN reply to the statement made in para 12 of the counter-affidavit, the petitioner-appellant in the rejoinder-affidavit reiterated the statement made in para-9 of the writ petition which is as under : "that the contents of paragraph No. 12 of the counter-affidavit are not admitted and denied as such. It is submitted that the time has been expired on 8. 6. 1989, for the T. A. and D. A. It is further submitted that the contents of paragraph No. 9 of the original writ petition are reaffirmed and reiterated here again. The certificate was needed as alleged in the paragraph under reply. However, it is further submitted that the petitioner has never joined and accepted any other job the requirement of certificate is arbitrary and not in accordance with law. The petitioner is fully entitled for T. A. , D. A. and subsistence allowance under the rules. " ( 8 ) THE petitioner was Clerk in the Nagar Palika and, therefore, his service conditions is governed under the provisions of U. P. Palikas Centralized Service Rules, 1966. Rule 30 (ii) of the aforesaid Rules provides as under: " (ii) Grant of pay, including officiating pay and additional pay, special pay, honorarium, compensatory allowance, subsistence allowance and the acceptance of fees shall be regulated on the same terms and conditions as are applicable to the Government servants of the same status under the U. P. Fundamental and Subsidiary Rules contained in the U. P. Financial Handbook, vol. II, Parts II-IV. " ( 9 ) THE above rule provides that the payment of subsistence allowance shall be regulated on the same terms and conditions as are applicable to the Government servants of the same status under the U. P. Fundamental and Subsidiary Rules contained in the Financial Handbook, Vol. II, Parts ii-IV. Chapter VIII of the Financial Handbook, Vol. " ( 9 ) THE above rule provides that the payment of subsistence allowance shall be regulated on the same terms and conditions as are applicable to the Government servants of the same status under the U. P. Fundamental and Subsidiary Rules contained in the Financial Handbook, Vol. II, Parts ii-IV. Chapter VIII of the Financial Handbook, Vol. II, Parts II-IV provides about dismissal, removal and suspension of a Government servant. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 53 of Chapter VIII provides about the payment of subsistence allowance to a Government servant placed under suspension. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 53 provides about the certificate to be furnished by the government servant under suspension for the payment of subsistence allowance under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 53. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 53 reads as under : "no payment under Sub-rule (1) shall be made unless the Government servant furnishes a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. " ( 10 ) ADMITTEDLY, the appellant-petitioner did not furnish such certificate as required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 53. Therefore, the payment of subsistence allowance from June, 1989 till his dismissal, i. e. , 8. 11. 1989, was not paid to him. It further appears from the statement of the petitioner made in para 26 of his show cause dated 30. 9. 1989 (Annexure-6) submitted pursuant to the show cause notice of the proposed punishment dated 11. 9. 1989 that he has been paid subsistence allowance till May, 1989 and thereafter, it was stopped as he did not furnish the certificate as required under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 53. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit and also in the impugned order that since June, 1989, the subsistence allowance has not been paid because of non-submission of certificate as required under the law. In this view of the matter, there is no refusal or denial of payment of subsistence allowance by the employer rather the same could not be paid due to non-submission of the certificate by the petitioner and, therefore, now he cannot take advantage of his own folly and lapses. In this view of the matter, there is no refusal or denial of payment of subsistence allowance by the employer rather the same could not be paid due to non-submission of the certificate by the petitioner and, therefore, now he cannot take advantage of his own folly and lapses. Besides that, in the writ petition no plea has been taken that the petitioner has been prejudiced on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance and due to penury, he did not appear in the proceeding rather it appears that he deliberately kept himself away from the proceeding against him. ( 11 ) IN the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), the delinquent employee was living in his hometown in the State of Kerala whereas the departmental proceeding was being held at Kolar gold Fields in Karnataka and a specific plea was taken before the High Court and before the honble Apex Court that on account of his penury occasioned by non-payment of subsistence allowance, he could not undertake a journey to attend the departmental proceedings. In that view of the matter, the Honble Apex Court in para 33 of the judgment held as under : "since in the instant case the appellant was not provided any subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and the adjournment prayed for by him on account of his Illness, duly supported by medical certificates, was refused resulting in ex parte proceedings against him, we are of the opinion that the appellant has been punished in total violation of the principles of natural justice and he was literally not afforded any opportunity of hearing. Moreover as pleaded by the appellant before the High Court as also before us that on account of his penury occasioned by nonpayment of subsistence allowance, he could not undertake a journey to attend the disciplinary proceedings, the findings recorded by the inquiry officer at such proceedings, which were held ex parte, stand vitiated. " ( 12 ) THE ratio decendi of the aforesaid case is that where a delinquent employee failed to appear in the departmental proceeding due to his penury caused by non-payment of subsistence allowance. In that event such ex parte proceeding stands vitiated. " ( 12 ) THE ratio decendi of the aforesaid case is that where a delinquent employee failed to appear in the departmental proceeding due to his penury caused by non-payment of subsistence allowance. In that event such ex parte proceeding stands vitiated. ( 13 ) SIMILARLY in the case of Ghanshyam Das Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the delinquent employee was residing at Rewa and the enquiry was being held at Jabalpur which is 500 kms. away from Rewa and the delinquent employee wrote a letter on 5. 12. 1964 to the inquiry officer informing him that unless he was paid subsistence allowance, he would not be able to face the enquiry proceeding due to acute shortage of funds. In that view of the matter, the honble Apex Court held that the order of dismissal from service cannot sustain as the appellant did not receive reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the enquiry proceeding due to non-payment of subsistence allowance. In both the aforesaid cases, i. e. , Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) and Ghanshyam Das Srivastava (supra), a specific plea was taken that the delinquent employee was not in a position to participate in the proceeding on account of nonpayment of subsistence allowance. An application to that effect was also filed before the inquiry officer. In the case in hand, the petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 19. 5. 1988 and the departmental proceeding was initiated shortly thereafter and the enquiry proceeding was concluded and the report was submitted on 1. 9. 1989. Admittedly, the subsistence allowance was paid upto May, 1989. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance from June, 1989, he was prevented from attending the proceeding. It appears that the petitioner was residing at Bindkl in the district of Fatehpur and admittedly the enquiry was also held at Bindki. He further did not make any application before the inquiry officer or before the disciplinary authority that due to non-payment of subsistence allowance, he is not in a position to attend the proceeding rather he filed the reply to the first charge-sheet within the time and for the second charge-sheet, he sought further time which was initially allowed but inspite of that, he did not give reply within the time allowed to him and, therefore, the inquiry officer proceeded ex parte and submitted his report. Even before the disciplinary authority in the show cause against the proposed punishment, the appellant-petitioner has not asserted that he was prevented from participating in the proceeding because of the non-payment of subsistence allowance nor such specific plea was taken in the writ petition before the learned single Judge. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the aforesaid authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner is of no help to the petitioner and do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 14 ) THEREFORE, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner deliberately kept himself away from the proceeding and on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance w. e. f. June, 1989 he has not been prejudiced at all and, therefore, the learned single Judge has rightly found that no case has been made out by the petitioner to the effect that he could not participate in the proceeding by reason of non-payment of subsistence allowance. The allegation in para 16 of the writ petition that at no stage the petitioner was given any opportunity of hearing or to produce evidence or cross-examine the witnesses of prosecution, has been denied in para 19 of the counter-affidavit wherein it has been averred that the petitioner was given ample opportunity of being heard. It further appears from the order of respondent No. 2 dated 8. 11. 1989, which has been impugned in the writ petition that the appellant-petitioner was given sufficient time to submit his written statement of defence to the charge-sheet dated 3. 5. 1989 as required under Rule 6 (2) (b) of the U. P. Municipal Boards servants (Inquiry, Punishment and Termination of Service) Rules, which provides that the charged servants written statement of defence should ordinarily be required to be submitted within a fortnight and in no case a period of more than a month should be allowed for the purpose. In the instant case, the appellant was initially given fifteen days time to submit his written statement of defence. However, on his request made vide application dated 6. 6. 1989, one months time was again allowed to him for the purpose but inspite of that, he did not submit his written statement of defence or show cause within the said period. However, on his request made vide application dated 6. 6. 1989, one months time was again allowed to him for the purpose but inspite of that, he did not submit his written statement of defence or show cause within the said period. Thus, sufficient and reasonable opportunity was given to the appellant-petitioner, which he did not avail and, therefore, the allegation of violation of the principles of natural justice is without merit and does not sustain. ( 15 ) NO other point has been urged. ( 16 ) IN view of the discussions made above, in our view, there is no merit in this appeal. We, accordingly, uphold the order of the learned single Judge. ( 17 ) THE special appeal accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed but without cost.