(1) SPECIAL leave is granted. (2) RESPONDENT was an Assistant in the Bangalore Regional Directorate of the Employees State Insurance Corporation of which appellant 2 is the Director. There is no dispute that the Regional Director is the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent. (3) AS an inbuilt mechanism of the establishment of Employees State Insurance Corporation, for facility of recreation of employees, Sports Boards and councils have been set up and some of these are even societies registered under the Societies Registration Act. Into one of such Boards the respondent had been nominated by the Directorate. For the purposes of sports a sum of Rs. 5,100.00 had been advanced by the Corporation to the respondent for being spent for the earmarked purpose. This was an event some time in 1984. Since for about a year thereafter the amount was not properly accounted for, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the Regional Director found him guilty and ultimately gave him the punishment of dismissal which was assailed before the Cen- tral Administrative tribunal, Bangalore bench. After hearing parties the Tribunal came to hold that working in the hierarchy of the Employees State Insurance Corporation was independent of the office held by the respondent in the Society as a member of the Sports Board and dereliction and delinquency in respect of activities of the Board was not available to be taken notice of by the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent in his basic employment under the Corporation. According to the Tribunal both were independent of each other and, therefore, jurisdictionally appellant 2 had no authority to exercise disciplinary control over the respondent. The tribunal also found that the enquiry had not been in accordance with the rules of natural justice and, therefore, the punishment has been vacated. (4) WE have heard learned Attorney General in support of the appellant and respondents counsel. We are of the view that the tribunal lost sight of the basic feature that the sports body was an inbuilt part of the larger establishment of the Employees State Insurance Corporation and a nomination to the Board or other sports authorities within the hierarchy was intended to be filled up by the nomination. Therefore, half of the members of the sports body was manned by the representative bodies of the ESI Corporation on the basis of nomination. Therefore, half of the members of the sports body was manned by the representative bodies of the ESI Corporation on the basis of nomination. The conduct of the sports body was, therefore, available to be reviewed by the Disciplinary Authority of the Corporation and if there was any delinquency shown in the sports body by the employees of the Corporation the Disciplinary Authority had jurisdiction to take notice of the same. Even counsel for the respondent is not prepared to support the view of the tribunal on this score. We accordingly vacate the finding of the tribunal that the Disciplinary Authority had no jurisdiction to maintain the proceeding, (5) SO far as the second aspect is concerned, we are of the view that the vouchers produced should be subjected to scrutiny and the delinquent should be given an opportunity to establish his innocence by satisfying that the money has been really spent for the specified purpose. It is true that there has been some delay in production of the vouchers but merely on the ground of delay the same may not be thrown out if they are genuine. Genuineness and tenability of the vouchers should be subject to examination. We accordingly remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to go into this question afresh by giving reasonable opportunity to the respondent to establish his stand. The evidence in support of the charges must be taken to have already been concluded. The matter should start from defence of the respondent and he should be called upon to establish his defence. In case he is able to establish that vouchers are genuine and the amount was really spent for sports purposes charges must be dropped and in case he fails to do so it would be open to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the matter on the basis of evidence. With these observations, we allow the appeal. (6) SO far as jurisdiction is concerned, the matter is made final by holding that the Disciplinary Authority has jurisdiction. There shall be a remit of the proceeding to the Disciplinary Authority for further enquiry keeping the directions in view. There will be no order as to costs.