CWP(T) No. 5192/2008 17.05.2010 Present: Mr. N. D. Sharma, vice counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate, for the respondents. The petitioner has prayed as under:- “(1) That the applicant herein by means of present application has inter-alia prayed for the following relief: “The respondents may be directed to increase the subsistence allowance to the applicant retrospectively from 11/94 from the date he is entitled after completing of 3 months of his suspension and such subsistence allowance was to be reviewed. The respondents may be directed to conclude the enquiry immediately” etc. etc.” 2. In this petition on 30.4.1998, the Court had directed for review of the subsistence allowance. Petitioner has no grievance about the non-compliance of the said order also. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pleads no instructions. 3. The respondents have filed their return stating as under:- “In context, the replying respondents submit with utmost respect that the applicant herein is facing enquiry in violation of the provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules in as much as during the year 1988 the applicant had been drawing regular salary from the Board and simultaneously started a business of manufacturing of energy meters in the name and stamp of M/s. Vikas Instruments (P) Ltd. Solan and procured purchase-orders from the Board in violation of Rule-15 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and that he engaged his wife in the said manufacturing company in dis-regard of Rule-4 of the conduct Rule etc. The applicant herein have since been charge-sheeted under the provisions of Rules and placed under suspension vide order dated 8.8.1994 a copy of which is annexed hereto as Annexure-RA-1. Thereafter the applicant herein has been granted subsistence allowance vide order dated 5.10.94 in accordance with the provisions of Rule -53 of the SR&FR. The claim of the applicant herein for the increase of subsistence allowance was also duly and objectively considered by the competent authority and in the facts and circumstances of the case it was decided by the competent authority vide order dated 26.6.95 (Annexure RA- II) that the subsistence allowance being drawn by him would continue to be drawn by him, till the conclusion and or finalization of the enquiry. The applicant herein again represented for the increase of the subsistence allowance and the same was also rejected by the competent authority after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus the action of the replying respondents is perfectly legal, intra-vires, bonafide one and consequently warrants no interference particularly when the process of enquiry is afoot. Therefore, the O.A. is not maintainable and deserves only dismissal.” 4. There is no rejoinder/denial to the same. 5. No legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands violated. Subsistence allowance has been fixed in accordance with the Rules. In these circumstances, no other and further orders are required to be passed. The petition stands disposed of. If already not completed, it is open for the respondents to complete the inquiry proceedings in accordance with Law. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 17, 2010 (rana)