BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED of the order of the Tribunal in o. A. No. 508 of 1995 the Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 24-9-1977 and charge-sheet was served on him on 19-10-77. He denied the charges. A Board of enquiry was constituted consisting of lt. Col. R. Swaminathan as Presiding Officer and Sri S. R. Ramaswamy, Scientist as member. The petitioner objected to the appointment of Board of Enquiry and also improper constitution of the Board. In spite of the objection raised by the petitioner enquiry was conducted. The petitioner contended that during the enquiry he requested the Board to summon certain documents but these documents were neither summoned nor furnished to the petitioner on the ground that the documents were not available. The petitioner thereafter filed a Writ being W. P. No. 144 of 1980 before the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to initiate disciplinary enquiry and also challenging the validity of framing of the charges. The High Court set aside the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the 2nd respondent had ho jurisdiction. The matter was carried to the supreme Court. The Supreme Court by its judgment dated 18-4-90 reversed the judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter back to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law. The Writ petition was thereafter transferred to the central Administrative Tribunal in terms of section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals act and it was renumbered as T. A. No. 991. This was disposed of on 10-9-1993. The tribunal remanded the matter back to the authorities with certain directions. Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29-12-93. The petitioner submitted his explanation. The 2nd respondent through his letter dated 14-6-94 imposed penalty of reduction of pay by four stages and reinstated the petitioner. The 1st respondent confirmed the order of 2nd respondent in appeal. The order of 14-6-94 was challenged by O. A. No. 508/95 which was dismissed on 1/-6-98. ( 2 ) ONLY two grounds have been agitatedby the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. The 1st respondent confirmed the order of 2nd respondent in appeal. The order of 14-6-94 was challenged by O. A. No. 508/95 which was dismissed on 1/-6-98. ( 2 ) ONLY two grounds have been agitatedby the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. Firstly it was tried to be argued that Rule-7 of Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964 are not applicable and once the Court comes to the conclusion that rule-7 was not applicable the same charges could not be tried under Rule-3 of the Rules. Secondly it was argued that the charge was based on three documents and no other evidence was available/ these documents were neither produced nor a copy was given to the petitioner on the ground that the documents had been destroyed. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that, charges made under Rule -7 of the Conduct Rules had been quashed by the order of the Tribunal dated 10-9-93 and the same charges could not now be brought under Rule-3 of the Conduct Rules. The tribunal while disposing of T. A. No. 991 in the year 1993 had held:"in the result, Article -II of the Charge memo dated 19-10-1977 to the extent of alleged violation of Rule 7 of the conduct Rules is quashed. It is for the concerned authority to dispose of the inquiry in regard to article-I and remaining portion of article-II in accordance with law. "the charges which were framed earlier were as follows:"article I of charge: shri M. Venkat Reddy, Designation machinest T. No. 658 was required vide workshop Routine Order No. 37 of 19-9-77 to report to the clocking supervisor of his shop every day and get his man-hour booking card, machine-hour booking card and operation cards punched. Shri M. Venkat Reddy failed to report to the clocking supervisor of his shop on 22-9-77, 23-9-77 and 24-9-77 and thus disobeyed workshop Routine order No. 37, dated 19-9-77. The aforesaid acts of commission. Shri M. Venkat Reddy amount to willful disobedience and constitute grave misconduct and hence violation of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article II of charge: shri M. Venkat Reddy, Designation machinist, T. No. 658 while functioning as Machinist during the period July 77 to Sep. The aforesaid acts of commission. Shri M. Venkat Reddy amount to willful disobedience and constitute grave misconduct and hence violation of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article II of charge: shri M. Venkat Reddy, Designation machinist, T. No. 658 while functioning as Machinist during the period July 77 to Sep. 77 instigated members of the staff of the development Works of DRDL to (a) Disobey verbal and written orders or instructions of the officers of the said, workshop such as workshop routine Order No. 37 of 19-9-77. (b) Strike work from 0845 hrs. to 1230 hrs. on 25-/-77. (c) Boycott their pay on 6-9-77, and (d) Shout slogans and take part in a demonstration on /-9-77 from 0840 hrs. to 0915 hrs. within the DRDL premises. Thus Shri M. Venkat Reddy either singly or in collusion with others made concerted attempts to disrupt the normal functioning of DRDL. As part of this attempt Shri M. Venkat reddy himself disobeyed the verbal and written instructions as stated above, struck work from 0845 hrs. to 1230 hrs. on 25-/-77, refused to take his pay on 6-9-77 though he was absent from his place of work and was to go to collect his pay, and took part in the demonstration between 040 hrs. and 0915 hrs. on /-9-77 inside the drdl premises. By the aforesaid act of commission and omission shri M. Venkat Reddy committed grave misconduct and behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant in contravention of Rules 3 and 7 of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) rules, 1964. "so, the Tribunal had held that Rule-7 was not applicable therefore Article II of the charge Memo dated 19-10-77 to the extent of violation of Rule-7 was quashed and the department was allowed to conduct enquiry with regard to Article I and remaining portion of Article II. Rule-3 and Rule-7 are reproduced;"3. General - (1) Every Government servant shall at all times (i) maintain absolute integrity (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. Rule-3 and Rule-7 are reproduced;"3. General - (1) Every Government servant shall at all times (i) maintain absolute integrity (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. (2) (i) Every Government servant holding a supervisory post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all Government servants for the time being under his control and authority; (ii) No Government servant shall, in the performance of his official duties, or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior; (iii) The direction of the official superior shall ordinarily be in writing. Oral direction to subordinates shall be avoided, as far as possible. Where the issue of oral direction becomes unavoidable, the official superior shall confirm it in writing immediately thereafter. (iv) A Government servant who has received oral direction from his official superior shall seek confirmation of the same in writing as early as possible, whereupon it shall be the duty of the official superior to confirm the direction in writing. ""7. Demonstration and strikes - No government servant shall. (i) engage himself or participate in any demonstration which is prejudicial to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or which involves contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence, or (ii) resort to or in any way abet any form of strike or coercion or physical duress in connection with any matter pertaining to his service or the service of any other government servant. From bare perusal of these two rules it becomes clear that Rule-3 and Rule-7 operate in two different fields. Article 1 of the charge would not come under Rule-7 and is covered by Rule-3. It cannot be construed that if Rule-7 is not applicable then a person who is subject to these rules has a licence to commit misconduct. If a charge is framed and if the charge comes under Rule-3 then Rule-7 would have no application. Rule-3 is not governed by rule-7. Both rules govern two different fields. It cannot be construed that if Rule-7 is not applicable then a person who is subject to these rules has a licence to commit misconduct. If a charge is framed and if the charge comes under Rule-3 then Rule-7 would have no application. Rule-3 is not governed by rule-7. Both rules govern two different fields. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for respondent that, although 1993 order had been passed by the tribunal holding that Rule-7 was not applicable but factually that was also not correct because the salary of the petitioner at the point of time was above Rs. 500/ -. Therefore, the argument advanced cannot be accepted. ( 4 ) THE second contention raised was thatthe three documents which were pertinent were not produced. It is true that these documents were not produced but one cannot forget that enquiry was ultimately conducted after 1993 and the charge relate to year 1977 and according to the respondents the petitioner has admitted the charges and the allegation that the petitioner had gone around to prevent the other employees from taking salary from 6-9-77 had been substantiated by evidence. Therefore, non- production of these documents would not vitiate the enquiry. ( 5 ) FOR these reasons, we do not find meritin this Writ Petition which is accordingly dismissed.