JUDGMENT Pratyush Kumar,J. This is an intra court appeal, filed by respondent no.4/Appellant (hereinafter referred as the appellant), assailing the correctness of judgment and order dated 30th May, 2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 1327 (S/S) of2013; Shyam Lal Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the writ petition was allowed and the disciplinary proceedings including the charge sheet no. 1/2009 dated 9th November, 2009 and resolution dated 29th December,2011 were quashed. 2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by petitioner who is respondent no.1 in the present appeal (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.1) with the averments that respondent no.1 was appointed on the post of head master of Sri Nehru Inter College, Katghar Raebareili managed by the appellant on 26th March, 1992. In December, 2006 Shishupal Singh was elected as the manager and started to harass the employees and further to misuse the fees collected from the students. On the pretext of forging fake marksheet and transfer certificate an FIR was lodged against the respondent no.1 and two others. After investigating final report was submitted in that matter. In the mean time respondent no.1 was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated vide charge sheet dated 9th November, 2009. Consequent the rule convener of the Inquiry Committee submitted the inquiry report dated 4th June, 2010 thereby exonerating the respondent no.1 from the charges levelled against him but the then manager Shsishu Pal Singh procured the resignation of the Convener and appointed Sri Dhirendra Singh as Convener of the Inquiry Committee who ex-parte proceeded in the matter and submitted the enquiry report holding the respondent no.1 guilty, thereon the appellant passed resolution dated 29th December, 2011 dismissing the respondent no.4 from the post of head master. 3. In the mean time various writ petitions were filed. In the present one according to respondent no.1 he had not been paid subsistence allowance since January, 2012. In this backdrop he prayed order issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire disciplinary proceedings along with charge sheet with all consequential benefits. 4. 3. In the mean time various writ petitions were filed. In the present one according to respondent no.1 he had not been paid subsistence allowance since January, 2012. In this backdrop he prayed order issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire disciplinary proceedings along with charge sheet with all consequential benefits. 4. On behalf of the appellant a short counter affidavit was filed wherein preliminary objections were raised that respondent no.1 had filed Writ Petition No. 2634 (S/S) of 2012 before this Court with a prayer to quash the resolution dated 29th December,2011 with further prayer that he might be allowed to work as head master, and that writ petition was withdrawn by the respondent no.1 with liberty to file a fresh petition in case final order adversely effecting the rights of respondent no.1 were passed. Thereafter the respondent no.1 had filed another Writ Petition No. 6519 of 2012 (S/S) with the prayer that he might be allowed to work as head master and be paid regular salary w.e.f. January, 2012. This writ petition was still pending. According to the appellant the respondent no.1 had deliberately concealed filing of two writ petitions by him. It has been further stated that respondent no.1 had made false statement that resolution dated 29th December, 2012 passed by the appellant was set aside by the D.I.O.S. arrayed as respondent no.2 in the writ petition and respondent no.3 in the present appeal. According to the appellant the respondent no.1 deliberately neglected to avail opportunity of oral hearing during the inquiry, he had withheld several records of the college illegally. His petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. On behalf of the respondent no.1 rejoinder affidavit was filed in the writ petition. The Court after hearing counsel for both the parties allowed the writ petition and granted the relief asked for on the ground that it is not disputed that during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings respondent no.1 was not paid any subsistence allowance. After referring the case of Jagdamba Prasad Shukla Vs. State of U.P. 2007 (7) SCC 90 it was concluded that due to non payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings entire disciplinary proceedings stood initiated. 6. After referring the case of Jagdamba Prasad Shukla Vs. State of U.P. 2007 (7) SCC 90 it was concluded that due to non payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings entire disciplinary proceedings stood initiated. 6. Aggrieved with this judgment and order the present appeal has been preferred on the ground inter alia that after passing of final order of dismissal charge sheet and disciplinary proceedings cannot be quashed, short counter affidavit has been considered. Impugned judgment is against the settled legal position and deserves to be set aside. 7. On behalf of the appellant it has been argued that the respondent no.1 was paid subsistence allowance in accordance with rules. It was the fault of the respondent no.1 that subsistence allowance could not be paid regularly. According to him respondent no.1 was requested by the respondent no.2 of the writ petition arrayed as respondent no.3 in the present appeal to furnish requisite certificate by letter dated 13th February, 2013 annexure no. 29 of the supporting affidavit filed with the writ petition. He has drawn attention of the Court to Annexure no. 30 which is a copy of letter dated 28th February, 2013 wherein the resondent no.1 in reference to payment of subsistence allowance has intimated that since January, 2012 he had not earned any money either by way of employment in the government department or semi government department with the prayer that from January, 2012 he be paid subsistence allowance. According to the learned counsel for the appellant it has been admitted even in the writ petition that till January, 2012 respondent no.1 had been paid subsistence allowance. After that could not be paid due to the fault of the respondent no.1 now be cannot take advantage of his own fault and urge that on account of non payment of subsistence allowance disciplinary proceedings initiated by charge sheet no.1 of 2009 stood vitiated. He has further argued that non payment of subsistence allowance does not vitiate disciplinary proceedings after dismissal of respondent no.1. In support of his argument he has referred the case of Indra Bhanu Gaur Vs. Committee, Management of MM Degree College AIR 2004 SC 248 . 8. He has further argued that non payment of subsistence allowance does not vitiate disciplinary proceedings after dismissal of respondent no.1. In support of his argument he has referred the case of Indra Bhanu Gaur Vs. Committee, Management of MM Degree College AIR 2004 SC 248 . 8. In view of the submissions made before us the following points for determination arise: (i) Whether the respondent no.1 had not been paid subsistence allowance since January, 2012 to the date his writ petition was filed?, if so its effect; (ii) Whether the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 is maintainable or not? (i) Whether the respondent no.1 could not been paid subsistence allowance since January, 2012 to the date his writ petition was filed? if so its effect. 9. It is admitted fact that in the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 that he was suspended on 11th October, 2009, charge sheet was served upon him on 9th November, 2009 and further he submitted his reply on 5th February, 2010. In para 26 of the writ petition the present respondent no.1 has himself stated that he was paid subsistence allowance from January, 2012. Annexure no. 24 to the supporting affidavit also reveals that the present respondent no.1 vide his letter dated 17th December, 2012 had requested the present appellant that he was not paid subsistence allowance since January, 2012, before he could participate in the inquiry he be paid subsistence allowance forthwith. The present respondent no.1 vide letter dated 13th February, 2013, copy whereof is annexure 29 to the supporting affidavit, reveals that he had not produced the requisite certificate inspite of request made on 26th December, 2012, he was requested to submit the requisite certificate i.e. he was not gainfully employed elsewhere. We find that the requisite certificate was submitted by the present respondent no.1 by his letter dated 2nd February, 2013. The present writ petition has been filed on 6th March, 2013 on the ground that due to non payment of subsistence allowance the disciplinary proceeding has been vitiated, consequently charge sheet and entire disciplinary proceeding be quashed. 10. From perusal of the short counter affidavit filed in the writ petition by the present appellant, we find that resolution to dismiss the present respondent no.1 was passed on 29th December, 2011. 10. From perusal of the short counter affidavit filed in the writ petition by the present appellant, we find that resolution to dismiss the present respondent no.1 was passed on 29th December, 2011. The present respondent no.3 requested the present appellant to provide an opportunty of hearing to the present respondent no.1 before orders could be passed on the said resolution. On 20th February, 2013 the appellant had informed the respondent no.2 that the present respondent no.1 had not turned up on the date fixed. 11. When the matter is examined in the back drop of these facts, we gather that upto January, 2012 the respondent no.1 was paid his subsistence allowance thereafter his subsistence allowance remained unpaid due to non furnishing of requisite certificate, a precondition for payment of subsistence allowance. The present respondent no.1 completed the formality in February, 2013 and soon thereafter filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court Jagdamba Prasad Shukla Vs. State of U.P. 2007 (7) SCC 90. In paragraph 8 of the judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "The payment of subsistence allowance, in accordance with the Rules, to an employee under suspension is not bounty. It is a right. An employee is entitled to be paid the subsistence allowance. No justifiable ground has been made out for non-payment of the subsistence allowance all thorugh the period of suspension i.e. from suspension till removal. One of the reasons for not appearing in enquiry as intimated to the authorities was the financial crunch on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance and the other was the illness of the appellant. The appellant in reply to show cause notice stated that even if he was to appear in enquiry against medical advice, he was unable to appear for want of funds of account of non-payment of subsistence allowance. It is a clear case of breach of principles of natural justice on account of the denial of reasonable opportunity to the appellant to defend himself in the departmental enquiry. Thus, the departmental enquiry and the consequent order of removal from service are quashed" 12. On behalf of the present appellant reliance has been place on the decision rendered in the case of Indra Bhushan Gaur (supra). Thus, the departmental enquiry and the consequent order of removal from service are quashed" 12. On behalf of the present appellant reliance has been place on the decision rendered in the case of Indra Bhushan Gaur (supra). Reference has been made of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex court made in para 8 of the report which reads as under: From the views expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above two cases we gather that whenever non payment of subsistence allowance occasioned without any fault of the employee, it would result in violation of rules of natural justice as financial constrained employee would not be in a position to properly defend himself. Thus non payment of subsistence allowance if resulted in causing prejudice to the charged employee, it would vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. However, where non payment of subsistence allowance had occurred due to any fault of the employee, the non payment would not amount to vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. In other words it is for the employee to show that non payment of subsistence allowance was not due to his own fault and it had prejudiced him in defending himself during the disciplinary proceedings only then non payment of subsistence allowance would be a valid ground to vitiate the disciplinary proceedings drawn against that employee. 13. What we find in the writ petition that the respondent no.1 has nowhere stated that non payment of subsistence allowance from January, 2012 was not due to his own fault and it had prejudiced him in defending himself. In absence of these averments and the legal position discussed above, we come to the conclusion that the respondent no.1 had failed to make out a case where disciplinary proceedings could be quashed on the ground of non payment of subsistence allowance. In the impugned judgment this point had escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge and resulted in legal error on this score. Accordingly we hold that upto January, 2012 the respondent no.1 was regularly paid subsistence allowance thereafter it could not be paid due to non furnishing of requisite certificate by the respondent no.1 and due to his own fault subsequent subsistence allowance could not be paid timely. Point no.1 is decided accordingly. (ii) Whether the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 is maintainable or not. 14. Point no.1 is decided accordingly. (ii) Whether the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 is maintainable or not. 14. Though on behalf of the appellant several grounds have been urged to hold the writ petition not maintainable but we find that the present writ petition though contains full factual matrix giving rise to filing of various writ petitions, however, this writ petition is confined only to one ground i.e. non payment of subsistence allowance and grant of relief to quash the charge sheet and consequent disciplinary proceedings on this ground. On technical ground we are not inclined to hold the writ petition not maintainable. On merit we had held earlier that the writ petition lacks necessary averments to make out a case for issue of certiorari on the ground of non payment of subsistence allowance, therefore, on this ground the present writ petition is not maintainable. Point No.2 is decided accordingly. 15. In view of above, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and further writ petition also deserves to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly intra court appeal 653 (S/B) of 2013 (Committee of Management Sri Nehru Inter College, Kathgar, District Raebareli Vs. Shyam Lal Verma and others) is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 30.5.2013 is set aside and the Writ Petition No. 1327 (S/S) of 2013 (Shyam Lal Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others) is dismissed.