JUDGMENT : HARISANKAR V. MENON, J. The petitioner, who was working as a Senior Deputy General Manager (Production) in the Cochin division of the 1 st respondent, has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge the order at Ext.P6 by which a penalty of censure has been imposed upon him, as also the order at Ext.P8 confirming the said order. 2. I have heard Smt.Thulasi K.Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.Jai Mohan, the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Smt. Thulasi would state that the penalty has been imposed with reference to the provisions of Rule 17 (c) and (d) of the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited Employees’ (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) and would contend that the said Rules requires to be declared unconstitutional. Without prejudice to the afore, it is her contention that the provisions of the afore Rules are not attracted to the case at hand. She would also invite the attention of this Court to the findings contained in Ext.P3 enquiry report, to point out that upon enquiry, the issue was found in favor of the petitioner, and it is without any valid reasons, the disciplinary authority chose to take a different view. 4. Per contra, Sri. Jai Mohan, the learned counsel, seeks to justify the penal steps taken, as noticed earlier, with reference to the transactions carried out at the hands of the petitioner herein. 5. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records. 6. Provisions of Rule 17 (b), (c), and (d) of the Rules, read as under: “ 17. Movable, immovable and valuable property (b) No employee of the Company shall except with the previous sanction of the competent authority enter into any transaction concerning any immovable or movable property with a person or a firm having official dealings with the employee or his subordinates. (c) Every employee of the Company shall report to the competent authority every transaction concerning movable property owned or held by him in his own name or in the name of a member of his family within one month of such transaction, if the value of such property exceeds Rs.15,000/-. (c) Every employee of the Company shall report to the competent authority every transaction concerning movable property owned or held by him in his own name or in the name of a member of his family within one month of such transaction, if the value of such property exceeds Rs.15,000/-. (d) Every employee shall, on first appointment in the Company submit a return of assets and liabilities in the prescribed form giving the particulars regarding: (i) the immovable property inherited by him, or owned or acquired by him or held by him on lease or mortgage either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family or in the name of any other person; (ii) shares, debentures, and cash including bank deposits inherited by him or similarly owned, acquired, or held by him; (iii) other movable property inherited by him or similarly owned, acquired or held by him if the value of such property exceeds Rs.15,000/-. (iv) debts and other liabilities incurred by him directly or indirectly (v) Every employee shall submit a return of immovable property inherited/ owned/ acquired on 1 st January of each Calendar year. Note: In all returns, the value of items of movable property worth less than Rs.15,000/- may be added and shown as a lump sum. The value of articles of daily use such as clothes, utensils, crockery, books etc. need not be included in such return. Explanation 1: The term “every transaction concerning movable property owned or held by him” includes all transactions of sale or purchase. For the purpose of this rule, the definition of movable property would include:- a. Jewellery, insurance policies the annual premia of which exceeds Rs.15,000/- or one-sixth of the total annual emoluments received from the Company whichever is less, shares, securities and debentures. b. Loans advanced by such employees whether secured or not; c. Motor cars, motor cycles, horses or any other means of conveyance and d. Refrigerators, radios (radiograms and television sets)” 7. A perusal of the afore Rules would show that, essentially, the respondent Company seeks to interdict its employees from entering into transactions concerning immovable as well as movable properties with “a person or a firm having official dealings with employees or his subordinates”. It is with reference to the afore restriction under Rule 17(b) that the purport of clauses (c) and (d) is to be appreciated. It is with reference to the afore restriction under Rule 17(b) that the purport of clauses (c) and (d) is to be appreciated. In the case at hand, the allegation contained in Ext.P1 charge memo is to the effect that the petitioner, while working as a Deputy Manager (Sales) during the period from June 2009 to August 2012, had paid an amount of Rs.55,000/- in three instalments to one Sri. Murali Nair, who was admittedly functioning as the Deputy General Manager (Corporate Finance). This Court further notices that, admittedly, the afore payments have been effected through the bank account of Sri. Murali Nair- meaning thereby that the transaction was in black and white. From the afore, this Court is of the opinion that, since the petitioner had only transferred/paid certain amounts to another employee of the 1 st respondent Company, the provisions of Rule 17 (b) or, for that matter, 17 (c) would not apply. True, going by the definition under Explanation 1, the term “every transaction concerning movable property owned or held by him” would include loans advanced by such employees, whether secured or not. However, that would also not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case, insofar as there is no allegation contained in the charge memo or in the order of penalty or in the appellate order to the effect that the petitioner had advanced the afore amount of Rs.55,000/- as “loan” to the afore Sri. Murali Nair. Again, Rule 17(b) would apply only when the employee is transacting with a third party who has official dealings with the employee or his subordinate. This is not applicable to the case at hand since Sri. Murali Nair was another employee like the petitioner. This Court notices that, it is quite common that employees functioning in an organization – be it in Government sector or the private sector – obtain loans or advances from other employees functioning in the same unit/organization and merely for that reason, no proceedings can be taken against the employee, especially when the entire transaction was admittedly through the bank. 8. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings taken against the petitioner, placing reliance on the provisions of Rule 17(c) and (d) of the Rules, are to be set aside. 9. 8. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings taken against the petitioner, placing reliance on the provisions of Rule 17(c) and (d) of the Rules, are to be set aside. 9. Insofar as the penalty imposed on the petitioner is being set aside, I am of the opinion that there is no requirement for considering the constitutionality or otherwise of the relevant provisions in this writ petition. Resultantly, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P6 issued by the 4 th respondent as confirmed by the appellate authority at Ext.P8 order. Needless to say that if the petitioner is entitled to any consequential benefits on the basis of the afore, the same is to be extended to him, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.