JUDGMENT Ravi S.Dhavan 1. The U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, has hied the present writ petition impugning the judgment and order of the U. P. Public Service Tribunals (V), Lucknow dated August, 7, 1987. Annexure 6 to the writ petition. 2. This matter has been called out in the revised list Learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation in present,, on behalf of respondent no. 2 Mohammad Rizwan the employee concerned, no one has appeared. Brief facts are that respondent no. 2 was deputed to put in a new unloader assembly on Bus no. UTB 224. The particular part which was to be replaced was found to be defective on August 30, 1977. The new part had been issued by the Store and the one which was taken out from the bus was received and deposited with the Store Keeper. The new unloader assembly instead of being put in the bus where it was meant to be installed was put in another vehicle, staff car, no 7458. The new assembly was recovered from the staff car no. 7458 and it was discovered that the old assembly had been fitted on to bus no. UTB 224, when it should have received the new part issued by the stores. The Corporation initiated proceedings for misconduct against respondent no. 2 He was placed under suspension on 1-9-1977. He was issued a charge sheet dated September 19, 1977 along with relevant documents. The documents are not in issue. 3. Respondent no. 2 first raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication as case no. 87 of 1980 to the Labour Courts Vsranasi. By order of June 11, 1991 the Labour Court was of the view that as respondent no. 2. in effect was a government servant, consequently it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the reference. 4. Thereafter respondent no. 2 filed a claim petition no. 382/F/B/1981, Mohammad Rizwan v. State of U. P. through the Secretary, Transport Department and others. The U. P. Public Services Tribunal No. V allowed the claim petition, mainly on the ground that (a) Charges have been vaguely described and (b) there is no mention of the oral evidence that was proposed to be led in support of the charges. The order removing respondent no. The U. P. Public Services Tribunal No. V allowed the claim petition, mainly on the ground that (a) Charges have been vaguely described and (b) there is no mention of the oral evidence that was proposed to be led in support of the charges. The order removing respondent no. 2 from service as Assistant Mechanic was quashed and he was allowed to continue in service with consequential benefits of pay and allowances, etc. The corporation had been left with the opportunity to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings after drawing up a charge sheet in accordance with the Civil Services (Qualification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 5. The Corporation, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India submits that the Tribunal was in error. 6. The only matter which this court has to see is whether there is any error which the Tribunal committed, be that manifest or one apparent on the face of the record. Before this Court examines whether a writ of certiorari can be used to examine whether the Tribunal in the impugned order may have committed an error, it would be pertinent to keep in mind on what exactly the Issue is. The matter arises out of disciplinary proceedings alleging misconduct and charges the employee with misappropriation of public property and using it elsewhere instead of the specific purpose for which he had been directed. The other aspect which the court has to see is whether the charges are vague so as to seem to a man with ordinary common sense that be may have been taken by surprise by not being able to confront the material which was going to be used against him on the ground that he bad not been apprised of the evidence to substantiate the charges. The contention before the Tribunal was not that the material had not been supplied to respondent no. 2. The grievance was that there was no repetition of the material accompanying the charges in the format of the charges. Thus one aspect is clear that no record had been kept away from respondent no. 2. Any record which was intended to be used was given to respondent no. 2 along with the charges. Now, this court is examining the specific complaint of the respondent no. 2 before the Tribunal. The aspect Is the oral evidence on record to be used against the said respondent. 2. Any record which was intended to be used was given to respondent no. 2 along with the charges. Now, this court is examining the specific complaint of the respondent no. 2 before the Tribunal. The aspect Is the oral evidence on record to be used against the said respondent. The oral evidence is referred to In the charge sheet and not only this the oral evidence accompanied the charge sheet. The contention of the respondent, in effect, was that a resume of the oral evidence was not put in the body of the charge sheet. 7. Here, this court is afraid the Tribunal fell Into an error. No disciplinary proceedings will be complete if at the slightest excuse hyper technical pleas are permitted. If Indeed reference to oral evidence was missing from the charges, then the disciplinary proceedings were in error and could not proceed. But this court finds from the record after perusing the charge sheet, Annexure 1 to the petition, that there is no omission of any evidence which was intended to be used against respondent no. 2. The oral evidence was not only mentioned in the memorandum of charges but accompanied the charges. Against every oral evidence which was to be used the charge sheet itself places on record that the copy of the statement of the person concerned is appended. Oral statements intended to be used against respondent no, 2 are against items nos. 4, 5 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Against each item the charge sheet mentions "Pratilipi Sanlangan hai". 8. In these circumstances, the Tribunal committed a manifest error apparent on the face of record in observing that a plain perusal of charge sheet in question leave no room for doubt that the charges therein have been vaguely described and there is no mention at all of the oral evidence that was proposed to be led in support of the said charges". No material had been withheld from respondent no. 2. IN these circumstances the disciplinary proceedings cannot be permitted to fail. In reference to the disciplinary proceedings the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ratan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512 are relevant: "It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may no apply. In reference to the disciplinary proceedings the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ratan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512 are relevant: "It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may no apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides, The essence off a Judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good However, the courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The 'residuum' rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passages from American Jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halbsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair common sense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because It amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence which has relevance to the charge levelled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground." 9. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence which has relevance to the charge levelled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground." 9. Thus, the direction of the Tribunal, in effect, holding that the claim petition is allowed and that the disciplinary proceedings drawn against the petitioner are illegal and invalid, is held to be in error and accordingly corrected by a writ of certiorari so as to imply that the claim petition is still pending. 10. This court hereby issues a writ of prohibition remanding the claim petition no. 382/P/B/1981; Rizwan v. State to the Tribunal aforesaid, with the direction that it be considered ani decided afresh on merits. The writ petition is allowed but as the respondent is a workman there will be no order on costs. Petition allowed.