Judgment :- The petitioner seeks for Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent dated 18.3.2000 and to quash the same. 2. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent as a Helper at the Modern Rice Mill, Neyveli on 2.7.1994. Subsequently, he was appointed as 'Assistant Operator' in terms of the service regulations. 3. He was served with a charge memorandum dated 9/1998 alleging that contrary to the conduct regulations applicable to the Government servants, he had participated in a tender in the name of his wife before the District Collector on 3.8.1995. On 4.8.1995, he had obtained E.M.D., on his behalf from the Office of the Collector contrary to the conduct regulations. On receipt of the charge memorandum, he gave his explanation on 18.11.1998, pointing out that he was not aware of the rules and regulations and therefore not guilty of the charges. 4. An enquiry was held and memo dated 18.1.1999 was communicated to him and the Enquiry Officer had held that all the charges were proved. On 8.2.1999, the petitioner gave further explanation. The enquiry was thereafter reopened and it was conducted by the same Enquiry Officer and he was permitted to examine his wife and his mother-in-law. After the examination of the witnesses, the Enquiry Officer again submitted his report holding that the charges were proved. By proceedings dated 7.9.1999, the first respondent imposed the punishment of reversion to the lower post for a period of three years. An appeal was filed before the second respondent which was rejected by the second respondent on 18.3.2000. Hence, the above writ petition. 5. The petitioner contends that the respondents were error in invoking Clause 25 (i) and the proceedings were misconceived and liable to be set aside. There was no bar for the wife of the employee to be engaged in any business or activity and hence the entire proceedings were misconceived. 6. In the counter filed by the respondents, while denying the allegations, it is stated that under Rule 25 (i) of the Standing Orders, it was clearly defined that engaging in Private Trade/Business or profession of any kind within or outside the premises would be a misconduct. No action has been taken against the petitioner under Civil Service Rules. The petitioner had given wrong information to this Court. No action has been taken against the petitioner under Civil Service Rules. The petitioner had given wrong information to this Court. Under Rule 25 (i) of the Standing Orders, any employee engaging himself in Private Trade/Business or profession of any kind would amount to a misconduct. There was clear evidence to show that the petitioner himself had participated in the opening of the tenders held at the Collectorate, Cuddalore and he had also signed in the attendance record register maintained in the Office and had also received the E.M.D., amount. The reasons given by the petitioner is an after thought and in order to escape from the punishment. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that regulations cannot be applied to the petitioner having regard to regulation No.2 (b). Regulation 2 (b) stipulates that they will not be applicable to those categories of employees for whom Standing Orders have been provided under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act. Even otherwise, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the rules and the regulations viz., Chapter-VII, there is no prohibition as against any employee in engaging himself in any other business or avocation. 8. The learned counsel further contends that even under Regulation 25 (i) which is invoked in the present case, what is termed as a misconduct is only the conduct of the employee himself engaging in Private trade or business of any kind within or outside the premises of the undertaking. There is no prohibition on his family members or his wife engaging herself or themselves in any business. 9. I have also heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel would submit that a domestic enquiry had been conducted as against the petitioner and the petitioner having been found to have taken part in the auction proceedings before the Office of the Collectorate, he was rightly found guilty of the charge of engaging himself in private business. Hence no interference was warranted. 11. I have considered the submissions of both sides. 12. In the present case, as far as the employees of Civil Supplies Corporation is concerned, for Supervisory and Managerial category, the Regulations are made applicable. However, as regards the manual and other categories of employees below the management category, the Standing Orders are made applicable. Hence no interference was warranted. 11. I have considered the submissions of both sides. 12. In the present case, as far as the employees of Civil Supplies Corporation is concerned, for Supervisory and Managerial category, the Regulations are made applicable. However, as regards the manual and other categories of employees below the management category, the Standing Orders are made applicable. Regulation No.2 (b) makes it clear that the regulation will not apply to those employees to whom the Standing Orders are applied. Therefore, it is clear that the regulation cannot be invoked in the case of the petitioner. Even otherwise, a perusal of Chapter-VII-Conduct Regulations discloses that there is absolutely no bar on the employee having any business outside the establishment. This position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. Now coming to the Standing Orders, Clause 25 (i) is as follows:- "Engaging in Private trade/business or profession of any kind within or outside the premises of the Undertaking" 14. The above provisions will show that the bar is only on the employee and not on the wife or any of the family members of the employee. This is probably due to the fact that the Standing Orders are applied to employees at the lower cadre and that there need not be any such bar on the family members of the employee to eke out their livelihood. In the present case, even according to the management, the business was being run only by the wife. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that Standing Order 25 (i) will not apply to the facts of the present case. 15. It is true that the employee appears to have gone to the Office of the Collectorate and had acted on behalf of his wife in obtaining the refund of E.M.D., after the auction proceedings were over. It is no doubt true that the petitioner/employee ought not to have left the Office, nor he should have engaged himself in the business activity of his wife. But that is not the charge against the petitioner. The charge is not that he left the office or absented himself unauthorisedly. The charge against the petitioner relates to alleged violation of the regulations/Standing Orders, by engaging himself in private trade or business. 16. But that is not the charge against the petitioner. The charge is not that he left the office or absented himself unauthorisedly. The charge against the petitioner relates to alleged violation of the regulations/Standing Orders, by engaging himself in private trade or business. 16. Having regard to the discussion above, I am inclined to hold that such a charge is not made out and hence the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.