Judgment :- V.S. Sirpurkar,J. The petitioner herein challenges the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called as the Tribunal) in allowing the Original Application No.5608/2002 filed by the first respondent herein quashing the entire disciplinary proceedings as well as the punishment imposed in pursuance thereof. 2. The first respondent herein at the relevant point of time was working as Deputy Director of Fire Services at Madurai. He had to conduct an examination meant for fire-men. He was the chairman of the examination committee. Examination was held and the papers were asked to be corrected by P.W.1 Swamidurai. The first respondent then asked one Narayanaswamy to correct the papers again. He then gave the average of the marks as given by Swamidurai and Narayanaswamy and on that basis prepared a list. The charge against him was that he had deliberately and with corrupt motive directed Narayanaswamy to correct the papers and then boosted the marks only of such persons whom he favoured. Of course, the charge is not that elaborate and it was merely stated in the charge that without there being any rules he gave boosted marks to few of the fire-men who wrote the examination and he had no powers to do so. There was another charge also that he had acted in unison of another colleague whose name is stated to be one Kabeer. The said charge is to the effect that Kabeer was made to give him an incorrect note that the minimum marks to be secured by the candidates was 40%. In the departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer held that both the charges were partly proved. However, the disciplinary authority seems to have disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and found that the first charge and so also the 2nd charge were completely proved and his explanation was asked for. Ultimately he was given the punishment of reduction in rank for two years. That was challenged by him on the ground that there is absolutely no evidence much less such evidence which could even remotely suggest supporting the verdict. The Tribunal has gone into the evidence and has found that in reality there was no evidence. The three witnesses who were examined in support of the charges were-P.W.1 Swamidurai, P.W.2 Kasiviswanathan and P.W.3 Pon Murugesan. The Tribunal has gone into the evidence and has found that in reality there was no evidence. The three witnesses who were examined in support of the charges were-P.W.1 Swamidurai, P.W.2 Kasiviswanathan and P.W.3 Pon Murugesan. Out of them P.W.1 Swamidurai was the one who had valued and corrected the papers in the first instance. P.W.2 Kasi Viswanathan is merely a stenographer and P.W.3 Pon Murugesan was then working as a Deputy Director and admittedly he has not even seen the papers. The Tribunal had found that the there was nothing to suggest that the first respondent had no power to order the revaluation as he did, or that he had done that exercise with corrupt motives. There is absolutely nothing brought out by way of evidence again to show that the first respondent had in any way influenced Narayanaswamy to give boosted marks only to few candidates whom he favoured. It has come on record that the first respondent averaged the marks given by P.W.1 Swamidurai and Narayanaswamy and on that basis prepared the final list. In our opinion , nothing better could have been done than this. There is nothing suggested that the first respondent had no authority to order the second valuation. Atleast there is no Rule prohibiting the Chairman from taking a course as he did. There is a clear-cut finding by the Tribunal that what was done appears to be bonafide because there is not even a hint that this was done with corrupt motive or to favour any particular candidate. In fact, no evidence of Narayanaswamy was also let in, to suggest that the said Narayanaswamy was in any way influenced by the first respondent to give more marks to any particular candidate or to give less marks to the others. If that was the view, the Tribunal is right in its conclusion that there was no evidence in support of the charges. If that was the view, the Tribunal is right in its conclusion that there was no evidence in support of the charges. The charges are reproduced as follows: "that you (Accused Officer-1) were working as Deputy Director of Fire Service, Madurai and while you (Accused Officer-2 ) were working as Assistant in the Office of the Deputy Director of Fire Service, Madurai, in abuse of their official position and authority and with ulterior motive and conniving with each other and having mutual understanding a) you (Accused Officer-2) had worked out an average mark of each candidate between the actual marks awarded by Thiru M.Samidurai, Divisional Fire Officer, Dindigul and the boosted marks awarded by Thiru N.Narayanasamy, Divisional Fire Officer, Virudhunagar for which there is no provision or rule and thereby paved way to you (Accused Officer-1) for the inclusion of candidates with whom you (Accused Officer-1) was having vested interest in the 'C' list for the category of Leading Fireman for the year 1986 relating to Kanyakumari Division, and also b) You (Accused Officer-2) in connivance with you (Accused Officer-1) had put up an Office Note on 31.3.87 to you (Accused Officer-1) stating that the minimum marks to be secured by each candidate for inclusion of Fireman in the 'C' List for the category of Leading Fireman was 40% as done in the earlier year 1985 as against the instructions as laid down in Memo.Rc.No.20283/C1/85, dated 1.7.85 of the Director of Fire Service, Madras and accordingly you (Accused Officer-1) had included the candidates who secured 40% and above marks in the 'C' list for the Leading Fireman for the year 1986 in violation of the said memo." 3. We have also gone through the charges as also the order of the Tribunal thoroughly. In the first charge, there is not even a hint that there was any unison between the respondent and Narayanaswamy. Again, the charge is hopelessly vague because it does not mention the candidates whom the first respondent wanted to favour or prefer. Therefore, we are quite satisfied that the Tribunal's finding is correct. In so far as the second charge is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a finding in para-13, that the recommendations made by the first respondent were actually accepted by the Director and that the whole issue was raked up after the lapse of about 5 to 6 years. Therefore, we are quite satisfied that the Tribunal's finding is correct. In so far as the second charge is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a finding in para-13, that the recommendations made by the first respondent were actually accepted by the Director and that the whole issue was raked up after the lapse of about 5 to 6 years. We also find the charges to be hopelessly vague. It does not show as to in what way the memo mentioned in the charge was violated. Lastly there is absolutely no evidence in support of this charge suggesting the common design of the delinquent officer and "Kabeer". The Tribunal has also adversely commented on the towering delay of 9 years in completion of the proceedings. We do not find anything wrong with the Tribunal's order. Hence the writ petition has no merits. Accordingly it is dismissed in limine. No costs. Consequently connected WMP is closed.