JUDGMENT The State has filed this revision petition under section 19 of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam for setting aside award dated 27.6.1996 passed by M.P. Arbitration Tribunal in Reference Case No. 15/94. It appears that respondent was allotted a rate contract for earth work of right bank canal of Man project of Dist. Dhar. The duration of contract was 9 months excluding 3 months of rainy season. Respondent was given the work order on 3.5.1990 and stipulated date for completion of contract ended on 2.5.91. He was accordingly put on notice by Engineer-In-Chief and required to resume the work. First notice was served on him on 23.5.92 and the second on 7.9.92 in terms of clause 4.3.3.3 of the agreement. He replied to these notices taking the stand that he had already completed the work and that he would not resume the work. The Engineer-In-Chief consequently rescinded the contract by letter dated 30.7.93 withdrawing the work and allotting the balance work to another contractor namely Mohanlal Patidar. Respondent thereafter sought reference before the Arbitration Tribunal contending that he was not obliged to resume work and that the contract had come to an end by efflux of time. He accordingly stacked a claim aggregating Rs. 3,30,054/- on account of amount involved in the final bill, earnest money and security deposit with interest. The State resisted his claim and justified the action to cancel the contract and to seek its completion from debitable agency in the facts and circumstances of the case and in terms of clause 4.3.3.3, and claimed an amount of Rs.1,99,679.40 from respondent on account of the extra cost incurred in getting the balance work executed from another contractor, Mohanlal Patidar. Even though it placed the relevant documents on record in support including the fresh NIT and the work order given to the new contractor and also an affidavit by the concerned executive engineer Madanlal Raghuvanshi stating that it had incurred the extra cost of Rs.1,99,679.40 in completing the work, tribunal found the evidence insufficient and passed the award in favour of respondent for Rs. 2,19,773 with 12% interest from the date of reference petition till realisation. State has come up in this revision on the plea that tribunal had misdirected itself and overlooked the documentary evidence on record while awarding the claim. 2,19,773 with 12% interest from the date of reference petition till realisation. State has come up in this revision on the plea that tribunal had misdirected itself and overlooked the documentary evidence on record while awarding the claim. At this stage it would be worthwhile to refer to the relevant findings and observations of the tribunal which run thus: "There was only a bald statement in the affidavit of respondent's witness Madanlal Raghuvanshi that the extra cost was Rs.1,99,679.40. This was no more than unfounded ipse dixit, amounting to no evidence at all. We should have expected respondents to prove by some evidence as work was got executed from debitable agency, the exact balance work, exact rate and amount for which said balance work had been got executed. This evidence could be by production of proof of NIT, contract and M.Bs. of the debitable agency, besides those of the original contractor and in the absence of cross-examination by the contractor, such evidence by affidavit or oral evidence of respondents witness or certificate of divisional officer spoken of in clause 4.3.3.3 of the present contract." The approach of the tribunal appears to be wholly mis-directed. After all the point in issue did not demand any strict proof on the part of the State in support of its having executed the balance work through debitable agency. The requisite proof was already on record of the tribunal including the NIT/work order containing all requisite details. It is strange that the tribunal should have ignored all these documents and instead projected it's own requirement of evidence from the respondent State. It had no justification to do so and brand the official statement of the executive engineer concerned made on oath in the shape of an affidavit as a bald statement and to go whole hog with the version projected by respondent contractor. By doing so it had only given a go bye to established norms and principles to draw conclusions contrary to the record. After all tribunal was not seized of a criminal trial requiring unimpeachable proof beyond any shodow of doubt. It had requisite official record available showing that respondent contractor had abandoned the work half way and that balance work was completed through a different agency and that extra money spent thereon was recoverable from original contractor. After all tribunal was not seized of a criminal trial requiring unimpeachable proof beyond any shodow of doubt. It had requisite official record available showing that respondent contractor had abandoned the work half way and that balance work was completed through a different agency and that extra money spent thereon was recoverable from original contractor. Once the record spoke for itself, it had no reason to set its own standards of evidence and proof to negate and disallow the State claim. It is true that the appellant State has not made any reference before the tribunal with respect to its claim of Rs.1,99,679/-. But, as held by the tribunal and rightly, the respondent contractor did not complete the contracted work and since he did not resume the work despite notice by the Engineer-In-Charge (E.E.), the latter was justified in invoking clause 4.3.3.3 of the work contract and thereunder to rescind the contract and get the balance work executed by another agency on extra cost to be born by the· original contractor, the respondent. Clause 4.3.3.3 provided that any expenses incurred in excess of the sum which would have been paid to the original contractor, if the whole work had been executed by him, shall be borne and paid by the original contractor and may be deducted from any money due to him by the Government under the contract or otherwise, or from the security deposit or the proceeds of sale thereof, or a sufficient part thereof. The appellant Government was, therefore, entitled to claim adjustment of the said amount of Rs. 1,99,679/- from the amount payable to the respondent contractor and if need be so also from the security deposit. The amount of Rs. 2,90,773/- found due to the respondent from the appellant State, therefore, deserves to be reduced by Rs. 1,99,679/- recoverable from the former under clause 4.3.3.3. The impugned award, therefore, suffers from a material irregularity and deserves to be modified to the extent indicated above. We accordingly allow this revision and modify the award to the extent indicated above. No order is, however, made as to the costs which in the circumstances, parties are left to bear their own as incurred in this Court as also in the tribunal.