ORDER : 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. 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 venue of enquiry was the office of Regional Medical Research Centre; wherein, the petitioner was prevented from actively participating in the enquiry. It is further contended that since the petitioner was having a prior permission to retain the flour mill which helped him to maintain the family of 19 members, the respondents were not justified in taking opposite turn in declining to acknowledge the said permission. It is further contended that since the petitioner was having a prior permission to retain the flour mill which helped him to maintain the family of 19 members, the respondents were not justified in taking opposite turn in declining to acknowledge the said permission. It is further contended that there was total violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not supplied the documents which were relied upon by the respondents. It is contended that even the complainant on the basis of whose complaint preliminary enquiry was held was not examined in the departmental enquiry though the report of preliminary enquiry was referred to by the enquiry officer in the departmental enquiry. Placing reliance on the decision in Kashinath Dikshita Vs. Union of India (UOI)and Others, AIR 1986 SC 2118 and Chandrama Tewari Vs. Union of India (UOI) (through General Manager, Eastern Railways), AIR 1988 SC 117 it is contended that the entire enquiry got vitiated for non supply of relevant documents and for non-examining the complainant in a departmental enquiry. It is contended that these aspects having been ignored by the Tribunal the order deserves to be set aside. 6. The respondents on their turn support the order passed by the Tribunal contending inter alia that the Tribunal having dealt with all the issues raised by the petitioner and having negatived the same on the basis of material on record no interference is called for in a well reasoned order. It is contended that in a departmental enquiry all steps were taken to conduct the enquiry in accordance with Rule by affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to inspect the record and the documents were also supplied to him during course of enquiry. It is urged that, on being placed under suspension it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have furnished proper certificate in respect of the fact as to whether he was engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. Instead, it was found that, despite of petitioner engaged in the business of flour mill he was tendering the certificate of non-engagement in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. It is contended that when confronted, the petitioner did not deny this fact having flour mill being source of income to the family. Instead, it was found that, despite of petitioner engaged in the business of flour mill he was tendering the certificate of non-engagement in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. It is contended that when confronted, the petitioner did not deny this fact having flour mill being source of income to the family. It is contended that, non-engagement in employment, business, profession or vocation being a condition precedent for grant of subsistence allowance, a decision was taken on 26.5.1993 to stop the subsistence allowance forthwith. The said action being based on cogent material is also the fact having not been denied by the petitioner, it is urged, does not warrant any interference. 7. In respect of initiation of departmental enquiry and subsequent order of punishment, it is urged that, being a government servant the petitioner was not entitled to enter into private trade or employment as the same is barred vide Rule 15 of Conduct Rules, 1964. It is contended that since petitioner was found engaged in a business of flour mills he was charge-sheeted on two counts; firstly, that the same was misconduct under Rule 15 (1) (a) of Conduct Rules, 1964; and secondly, that he gave a false certificate of non-engagement in employment, business, profession or vocation to earn the subsistence allowance. It is contended that there were no specific denial of the charges by the petitioner. On the contrary the petitioner admitted the fact of having flour mill. It is submitted that though a defence was taken by the petitioner that flour mill was being operated/retained after seeking prior permission of the competent authority; however, no such authority was shown by the petitioner and it was only at the stage when the matter rested with the disciplinary authority, on enquiry that the petitioner came up with Xerox Copy of a note-sheet dated 4.4.1988 said to be the permission granted by the competent authority. It is contended that recording in note-sheet ipso facto cannot be construed to be a permission as unless a formal order of permission is granted the same remains to be the opinion of officer concerned. For the said proposition learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on decision in Sethi Auto Service Station and Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others, AIR 2009 SC 904 and Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal and Another, AIR 2010 SC 3455 . For the said proposition learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on decision in Sethi Auto Service Station and Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others, AIR 2009 SC 904 and Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal and Another, AIR 2010 SC 3455 . It is further contended that petitioner during entire course of enquiry did not contradict the allegation that he was not operating the flour mill. In view whereof, it is urged, that, non-examination of alleged complainant would not vitiate the enquiry as no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner. It is stated that even if said complainant would have been examined, he would have only narrated the factual aspect as to flour mill being operated by the petitioner which in fact having not been denied by the petitioner, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner. 8. Referring to the enquiry proceeding it is contended by learned counsel for respondents that barring non-appearance on 19.6.1993 and 25.6.1993 the petitioner participated in the enquiry. Referring to proceeding dated 6.7.1993, it is contended on behalf of respondents that petitioner besides affirming the receiving of the documents annexed along with Annexure A-3 appended with the charge-sheet accepted the authenticity of all documents except document P-24, which was a letter received from M.P. Electricity Board was got authenticated from the employee of M.P.E.B. on 22.7.1993 in the presence of petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner was also given an opportunity to produce his defence witness; however, the same was not availed by the petitioner as is evident from the proceeding dated 3.8.1993. It is contended that since the charges leveled against the petitioner were duly proved in a departmental enquiry; wherein the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing, the order removing the petitioner from service being in commensurate with the charges leveled and proved against him does not warrant any interference. 9. We have heard the parties at length and perused the departmental enquiry record placed before us, as well as personal file of the petitioner which being maintained in due course of business does not contain the note-sheet dated 4.4.1988 which contains the alleged permission granted to the petitioner to operate/retain the flour mill. The file was also exhibited to the petitioner. Be that as it may. 10. The file was also exhibited to the petitioner. Be that as it may. 10. Apparent it is from record that, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.2.1992. The said suspension was in contemplation to a departmental enquiry and was under Rule 10 (1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965; which provides for that the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by the general or special order, may place a government servant under suspension- (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) where, in the opinion of the authority he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the state; or (c) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. 11. Fundamental Rule 53 makes a provision regarding entitlement of suspended government servant for the remuneration. Sub-rule (2) of ER. 53 stipulates that no payment under sub-rule (1) shall be made unless the Government servant furnished a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. 12. In the case at hand, the petitioner was thus under obligation to have furnished the certificate as warranted under sub-rule (2) of E R. 53 which though he adhered to wherein he stated that he has not been employed in any employment, business, profession or vocation for profit/remuneration/salary which in fact was contrary to the fact that the petitioner was retaining business of flour mill which earned him the remuneration either directly or indirectly. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the petitioner to have disclosed these facts which when discovered by the employer, i.e., respondents the same resulted in the order dated 25.6.1993; whereby, the subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner was stopped. We find no good reason to interfere with the said order. The subsistence allowance as apparent from its characteristic is to help the government servant, under suspension, to subsist and not perish. However, when such government servant has an alternate source of income he has no entitlement for the subsistence allowance. The Tribunal, therefore, was justified in negativing the challenge put-forth by the petitioner. 13. The subsistence allowance as apparent from its characteristic is to help the government servant, under suspension, to subsist and not perish. However, when such government servant has an alternate source of income he has no entitlement for the subsistence allowance. The Tribunal, therefore, was justified in negativing the challenge put-forth by the petitioner. 13. Regarding charges leveled against the petitioner 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. It is observed that Rule 15 (1) (a) of Conduct Rules, 1964 stipulates that, no Government servant shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government (a) engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business. 14. In his explanation to first charge, the petitioner did not deny the fact of operating the flour mill, which he contended was being operated even prior to taking up the service with respondent and a permission was sought on 1.4.1988 to retain the same which as per the petitioner was granted on 4.4.1988, to substantiate petitioner filed a copy of note-sheet along with his defence in response to the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority vide impugned order of punishment while considering it, discarded it holding the same to be forged. The conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority is without getting the document examined by an expert as to whether the signatures of the Administrative Officer and the Director appearing on the note sheet were forged. In order to prima facie ascertain the veracity of the document we summoned the personnel file of the petitioner and observe the similarity of signature of the Administrative Officer and the Director as it was on 4.4.1988. The disciplinary authority to meet out this situation had taken into consideration the alternative aspect that an opinion formulated in a note sheet is not an express order as would create a right in favour of a person (a concept borrowed from the decision in Bachhittar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395 , Sethi Auto Service Station and Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others, AIR 2009 SC 904 and Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395 , Sethi Auto Service Station and Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others, AIR 2009 SC 904 and Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal and Another, AIR 2010 SC 3455 . Thus, it is on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, a concept duly recognized in the case of domestic enquiry where the strict rule of evidence is not applicable, the disciplinary authority concluded that the petitioner was not having a prior written permission to operate the flour mill, a pre-condition to overcome a misconduct. Rule 15 of Conduct Rules, 1964 when read in right perspective indicates that the profession, vocation or employment enumerated therein can be pursued by a government servant, however, subject to prior written permission. The rider is mandatory in nature, the violation whereof is viewed as an act unbecoming of government servant rightly so. In the case at hand the petitioner who entered into service with respondent after his innings with Indian Army was already having a flour mill and it was to retain the same the petitioner sought permission. Be that as it may. The given facts; however, leaves an indelible impression that petitioner had sought permission to retain flour mill, therefore, was at least entitled for benefit of doubt in respect of charge No. 1. 15. Regarding charge No. 2 mandatory it is for government servant under suspension to give a certificate regarding engagement in any other employment, business, profession or vocation as is postulated under E R. 53 (2), which facilitates disbursement of subsistence allowance. 16. We are commended to the certificates furnished by the petitioner on his suspension for grant of subsistence allowance; wherein he certified that he has not been employed in any business, profession or vocation for benefit or remuneration/salary. This declaration on the face of it and in the context that the petitioner was operating a flour mill was out and out incorrect and was definitely given with an intention to have an unlawful gain of subsistence allowance. There cannot be a sin graver than a lie for gaining an unlawful benefit, for that, petitioner is rightly indicted by the disciplinary authority, no interference is caused therein? 17. Regarding affording reasonable opportunity of hearing, we observe that the Tribunal has returned a finding based on the record that the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself. There cannot be a sin graver than a lie for gaining an unlawful benefit, for that, petitioner is rightly indicted by the disciplinary authority, no interference is caused therein? 17. Regarding affording reasonable opportunity of hearing, we observe that the Tribunal has returned a finding based on the record that the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The findings when adjudged on the basis of material on record which being placed before us, we do not perceive any perversity in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. Having thus considered, we do not find any substance in the petition as would warrant an interference with the order passed by the Tribunal, Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority. In the result petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Dismissed.