JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - The Petitioner-Governing Body of Konark Bhagabati Mahavidyalaya represented through its Principal-cum-Secretary has filed this writ application assailing the Order Dated 14th September, 1998 passed by the State Education Tribunal in Education Appeal No. 30/1997 setting aside the action of Respondent No. 3 (Petitioner No. 2 in the present case) in terminating the services of the Appellant (O.P.4 in the present case) and directing to reinstate him forthwith with all service benefits including salary for the intervening period (Annexure-8). 2. The brief facts leading to this writ application tend to reveal that O.P.4-Durga Charan Murudi was initially appointed as Lecturer in Oriya on 29.8.1996 in Konark Bhagabati Mahavidyalaya where he joined on 2.9.1996 and his joining report was duly accepted. After few days, the then Principal of Konark Bhagabati Mahavidyalaya, Md. Doud (O.P.2) was transferred and the new incumbent joined in his place on 18.11.1996. It is alleged that the new Principal prevented O.P.4 from discharging his duty and did not release his salary component. So, O.P.4 preferred a writ application being O.J.C. No. 5349/1997 before this Court, which was disposed of on 3.9.1997 stating that since disputed questions of facts were involved due to allegations and counter allegations, the same could not be decided in the writ application. However, leave was granted to the Petitioner to approach the Tribunal. Then, O.P.4 approached the State Education Tribunal in Education Appeal No. 30 /1997, wherein the impugned order was passed. 3. Now the Governing Body of the College challenges the said order on the ground that the Tribunal has gone wrong in allowing the Appeal of O.P.4 in view of the fact that there is no resolution by the Governing Body to show that O.P.4 was ever appointed by the Managing Committee. O.P.2, who was the Principal then, has not issued any appointment letter to O.P 4 and that apart, O.P.4 did not produce any document before the Tribunal to prove his case that he was appointed by the Governing Body and it allowed him to continue in the said College. 4. It is worthwhile to mention here that during pendency of this writ application, on 17.5.2005 Learned Counsel for the Petitioners wanted to withdraw the writ application and accordingly, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. After six months, Misc. 4. It is worthwhile to mention here that during pendency of this writ application, on 17.5.2005 Learned Counsel for the Petitioners wanted to withdraw the writ application and accordingly, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. After six months, Misc. Case No. 1248/2005 was filed by the Petitioners to recall the Order Dated 17.5.2005 indicating therein that Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate, made the prayer for withdrawal on the basis of a letter received from the Principal of the College, but the same was forged one and the Principal had never issued any such letter. The said Misc. Case was rejected. Again by Order Dated 24.3.2006 passed in Misc. Case No. 1336/2005 filed by the Petitioners, the Order Dated 17.5.2005 was recalled and the writ application was directed to be listed on 19th April, 2006 for hearing and final disposal. 5. Now, Mr. P. Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, strenuously argues that the appointment of O.P. 4 is an outcome of fraud played by the then Principal, Md. Doud and there is nothing on record to show that O.P. 4 was ever appointed in the said College, he claim of his continuance is far from truth. In order to fortify his argument, Mr. Mohanty drew our attention to the copies of the Attendance Register (Annexure-6) and Acquaintance Register (Annexure-7) and submitted that the name of O.P.4 does not find place in either of the Registers. 6. We perused the L.C.R. of the Tribunal, as called for, as well as the impugned order. It is worthwhile to mention here that Md. Doud, the then Principal and Dharmananda Dalei, who was President-cum-Sub-Collector of the Governing Body of the Konark Bhagabati Mahavidyalaya, during the period when O.P.4? claimed to be appointed, were parties before the Tribunal and they have filed their respective affidavits confirming the fact that the letter of appointment has been issued in favour of O.P.4. Doud, the then Principal and Dharmananda Dalei, who was President-cum-Sub-Collector of the Governing Body of the Konark Bhagabati Mahavidyalaya, during the period when O.P.4? claimed to be appointed, were parties before the Tribunal and they have filed their respective affidavits confirming the fact that the letter of appointment has been issued in favour of O.P.4. With regard to the allegation of the Petitioners that the Appellant (O.P.4) could not show anything before the Tribunal in support of his claim that the letter of appointment was issued, we may refer to paragraph-12 of the order of the Tribunal dated 14.9.1998 wherein it is stated that Respondents 2 & 3 have taken a stand that in the Resolution Book there is no resolution regarding giving appointment to the Appellant (O.P.4) and the Staff Attendance Register and Acquaintance Register do not show about joining or continuance of the Appellant in the post. But those records were not produced before the Tribunal by the Management, which was a party to the proceeding and contesting the case, for which the Tribunal took adverse view in that regard. We make it clear that the submission of Mr. Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that it is incumbent on O.P.4 to prove his case before the Tribunal does not hold good because of the reason that the Acquaintance Register and Attendance Registers, which were in the custody of the Management; nothing prevented them from producing those documents to disprove the claim of O.P.4. Strict rule of evidence cannot be applied in a proceeding before the Tribunal and law is well settled regarding this. Now coming back to the allegation that the documents were forged, we do not find any iota of evidence in this regard rather there is no reason to disbelieve the affidavits filed by the Ex-Principal as well as the Ex-President of the Governing Body, who are responsible government servants, before the Tribunal supporting the stand of O.P.4. The Tribunal has not done any wrong in re-posing its faith on the affidavits filed by the Ex-Principal as well as the Ex? President of the Governing Body or accepting the documents. 7. From the appellate order it is also evident that the Tribunal after taking into consideration several documents produced before it, arrived at the conclusion allowing the appeal of O.P.4 and passed the order impugned in this proceeding. 8. President of the Governing Body or accepting the documents. 7. From the appellate order it is also evident that the Tribunal after taking into consideration several documents produced before it, arrived at the conclusion allowing the appeal of O.P.4 and passed the order impugned in this proceeding. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner files several documents before this Court to re-evaluate the evidence already assessed by the Tribunal, which this Court cannot do in a certiorari proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court can look into the infirmity and perversity in the appellate proceeding, which the Petitioner fails to indicate. As the order impugned suffers from procedural infirmity or perversity, it cannot be interfered with. However, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that as O.P.4 has not practically worked from 1996 till 2005, he is not entitled to get any salary for the said period, albeit his salary shall be notionally fixed as per the order of the Tribunal and ultimately, the same shall be paid from the date of his joining. He further submits that O.P.4 is yet to get approval from the Director. We are of the view that there is some force in the first part of submission made by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered that O.P.4 is not entitled to get any salary for the period from 1996 to 2005, as he has not worked during that period, but his salary shall be notionally fixed as per the order of the Tribunal and ultimately paid to him from the date of his joining. With regard to submission of Learned Counsel for the Petitioners for approval of the service of O.P.4, we make it very clear that the statutory provision in this regard shall take its own course. 10. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. R.N. Biswal, J. 11. I agree.