(ORAL) JUDGMENT R.S. Dalvi, J.–The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dismissing the petition dated 23.12.1994. The impugned order of the Director, Iron Ore of the respondents who was the Disciplinary Authority is based upon the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 28.10.1994. 2. It has been the petitioner's contention that the respondent's officer did not prove the charge in the inquiry and that the charge was levied upon fabricated documents put up by the respondents themselves. 3. The charge-sheet has admittedly been served upon the petitioner. He has filed his reply / say. There has been extensive evidence. The Inquiry Officer's report has been made. The Disciplinary Authority has acted thereupon. The petitioner has challenged the same. The petitioner has made a representation to the Director, Iron ore on 4.1.1995 in that regard. Thereafter the Central Government has referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal on 14.2.1996. Upon the reference having been made the claims were filed. The respondents filed the written statement. The Tribunal has thereafter considered the report of the Inquiry Officer and the order of the Disciplinary Authority pursuant thereto. The writ petition has challenged essentially the dismissal order. 4. Upon the petitioner's contention of being dismissed upon fabricated documents, the writ Court would be only require to see the seminal case of the petitioner being made out by the petitioner or the essence of the charge being made out by the respondents. Once the actual transaction evidenced by the various documents produced by the respondents in the inquiry is seen, the fabrication of the documents, if at all would be made out. 5. The charge-sheet show that the petitioner arranged to issue 10 ltrs. ENKLO 68 oil and 40 ltr. MG 20 W 40 oil to a third party M/s. Vantekar Transport. However for that transaction the petitioner made a gate pass for only 5 ltrs. of ENKLO 68 oil and 20 ltrs. MG 20 W 40 oil. The petitioner's gate pass was therefore for a lesser amount of oil than was actually issued. The petitioner has shown to have prepared stores adjustment voucher dated 6.10.1993 (SALES). The charge against him is that he filed a copy of the voucher but did not send the original to the Data Processing Unit as per the procedure which was usually done. The petitioner has shown to have prepared stores adjustment voucher dated 6.10.1993 (SALES). The charge against him is that he filed a copy of the voucher but did not send the original to the Data Processing Unit as per the procedure which was usually done. The further charge was that he did not put the serial number on the copies which were put as per the procedure. 6. On this charge, it would be pertinent to see the original documents themselves. The vouchers are prepared in tliplicate. One copy is given to the customer, two copies are retained with the respondents. The petitioner prepared the vouchers. The respondents have produced the original, duplicate and the Xerox copies. The original and the duplicate copies which are at Exh. 10 and 11 show the serial number. The Xerox copy which was taken by the respondents' officer from the copy stated to be kept back by the petitioner does not show the serial number. That is the part of the charge. Hence the voucher prepared by the petitioner initially on 6.10.1993 and which is stated to be kept back by the petitioner does not have the serial number but has the date 6.10.1993 as shown in the charge. The original and the duplicate copy have serial numbers whereas all the other particulars in the voucher are the exact carbon copy of the original voucher. Only the serial number is missing. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner by his Advocate that the serial number is never put in the beginning. The vouchers are essentially only the requisition slips for the customer to obtain oil if available from the oilman. If the oil is not available the requisition slip does not become a part of the record. If the oil is available one copy is given to the customer and the other copy comes back to the respondents for filing as per the procedure. This explanation does not stand to reason. Aside from the location, number which would be of a particular store, the second column is of the serial number. It cannot be accepted that the serial number on the documents prepared in triplicate would be part of the document, last of all after the document is sent for the transaction to be materialized. 7. The Xerox copy of the vouchers Exh. 8 and 9 show the date 6.10.1993. It cannot be accepted that the serial number on the documents prepared in triplicate would be part of the document, last of all after the document is sent for the transaction to be materialized. 7. The Xerox copy of the vouchers Exh. 8 and 9 show the date 6.10.1993. The vouchers also show the code number. For the same code numbers and for the same items shown as description of material and quantity, the dates in the original vouchers and the carbon copy at Exh. 10 and 11 are different. Aside from they being different they are distinctly shown to be interpolated. Whereas the carbon copies are same only the date shows interpretation in ink. 8. It has been sought to be considered on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has a facsimile of all these documents on a single paper. The petitioner's Advocate took great pain to take the Court though all these copies. The Court could indeed see at a glance the Xerox copies of all these documents being original vouchers, its carbon copies and the Xerox copies taken by the respondents' officer of the petitioner's allegedly kept back copy which is stated to be "trap xeroxes". The petitioner's Advocate argued that the word "SALES" on the top of each of these vouchers is not as per the carbon copy Exh. 11. He contended that it is exactly as per Exh. 10 but not as per Exh. 11. 9. I have gone through the copies produced by the petitioner's Advocate before this Court for facilitating the comparison. There are two vouchers under Code No. 205 and two vouchers under Code No. 268 in Exh. 11, The word "SALES" is a rubber stamp put on the vouchers. Consequently the rubber stamp would be put on each voucher separately. I have compared the original document Exh. 11 which is a carbon copy and Xerox copy produced by the petitioner. The petitioner's advocate states that these are facsimiles of the copies given to the petitioner during the inquiry, He has taken pains to show me that the word "SALES" by way of rubber stamp does not match Exh. 11, with regard to the particulars contained in voucher, complete with the interpolated serial number and the interpolated dates. The entire exercise has come to nothing. The essential documents at Exh. 11, with regard to the particulars contained in voucher, complete with the interpolated serial number and the interpolated dates. The entire exercise has come to nothing. The essential documents at Exh. 8, 9, 10 and 11 themselves show the charge against the petitioner proved by the respondents. The handwriting in the contents of the documents as also the interpolated handwriting in the serial number and the dates are the same. It is not the petitioner's case that these documents are not prepared by him or that he was not in custody of these documents. In fact, his Advocate explained how initially the vouchers are prepared in triplicate and how the documents become vouchers and are retained by him to be kept in the records as per the procedure. Handwriting in the documents clearly show that these documents have been executed since 6.10.1993 and interpolated and tampered with on 14.10.1993 by none other than the petitioner. 10. The second charge though appearing to be more unwieldy of proof, has been proved by the company records maintained in the normal course of the business of the respondents' company. The charge shows how diesel was supplied under the service of the petitioner on the dates mentioned in the charge against the machine equipment shown thereunder for actual quantity issued by the company than the one recorded by the petitioner, the petitioner having recorded excess literage in the records maintained by him. It is elementary that the register for such transactions would be maintained by more than one hand. There would be different clerks and officers making entries day to day for such transactions, the petitioner having made entry at one end. The respondents have relied upon and produced four registers kept in the normal course of their business at Exh. 12 colly. These are kept day to day. They are handwritten. They show the entires mentioned in the charge amongst various other entries of that day. Mrs. Agni meticulously took me to each of these entries in the register to collate them with the entries made by the petitioners in what is called the day's record maintained by the petitioner in triplicate in his own handwriting. 11. It would be interesting to go through each of the entries in the second charge. (a) The first entry is dated 6.10.1993 which is for "compressor 135". 11. It would be interesting to go through each of the entries in the second charge. (a) The first entry is dated 6.10.1993 which is for "compressor 135". The actual quantity is shown to be 80 ltrs., the quantity shown is 120 ltrs. Hence the petitioner has shown access of 40 ltrs. The small register at Exh. 12 shows the entry "compressor 135" against which is figure 80 on the page relating to the dated 6.10.1993. The day's register Exh. 13 for the date 6.10.1993 shows various entries made by the petitioner amongst which is the entry "compressor 135" showing 120 ltrs., as the quantity supplied. b) Another entry also of 6.10.1993 in the second charge is for "Haulpak 611" which shown the actual quantity supplied to be 225 ltrs., whereas the petitioner is stated to have made an entry for 250 ltrs. Showing excess of 25 ltrs. This entry is bifurcated into two and shown in two registers at Exh. 12. An entry called "H611" is shown in the register for 6.10.1993 showing the quantity of 95 ltrs. supplied. The other entry "H611" shown in the other register of the same date is for 130 ltrs. The total of these two entries is 225 ltrs. The daily report maintained by the petitioner is Exh. 13 shows one entry alone under the expression "Haulpak 611' for 250 ltrs. which is excess by 25 ltrs. in a single entry. (c) The third entry also dated 6.10.1993 is for "Haulpak 610" which for 225 ltrs. shown by the petitioner as 240 ltrs. being excess by 15 ltrs. The same register shown entry 610 a little above entry 611, it is for 105 ltrs. and 100 ltrs. as against the petitioner's single entry in Exh. 13 against "Haulpak 610" for 240 ltrs. which is in excess by 25 ltrs. (d) The fourth item of 7.10.1993 relates to "water pump 572" which shows the actual quantity, issued of 435 ltrs. as against the entry recorded by the petitioner as 525 showing excess of 90 ltrs. The small register in Exh. 12 shows that entry as "water pump 572" on the date of entries being 7.10.1993 for 435 ltrs. Exh. 14 is the day report maintained by the petitioner for 7.10.1993. That shows the entry of "water pump 572" for 525 ltrs. which is in excess by 90 ltrs. The small register in Exh. 12 shows that entry as "water pump 572" on the date of entries being 7.10.1993 for 435 ltrs. Exh. 14 is the day report maintained by the petitioner for 7.10.1993. That shows the entry of "water pump 572" for 525 ltrs. which is in excess by 90 ltrs. (e) The entry dated 9.10.1993 in the charge-sheet is for "water pump 572" for 720 ltrs. the actual quantity issued by the petitioner was 760 ltrs. which is in excess of 40 ltrs. That is also reflected in the small register Exh. 12. Against the date 9.10.1993 is the entry showing "water pump 572" for 720 ltrs. Exh. 15 is daily register maintained by the petitioner on 9.10.1993 which shows entry to "water pump 572" for 760 ltrs. being 40 ltrs. in excess. (f) The other entry of 6.10.1993 is for "compressor 135" showing quantity issued of 80 ltrs. against the quantity recorded by the petitioner as 120 ltrs being in excess of 40 ltrs. That entry is found in small register for the date 9.10.1993 shown as "compressor 135" against which is shown the figure 80 ltrs. The corresponding entry in the day report of 9.10.1993 maintained by the petitioner in Exh. 15 shows the entry "compressor 135" for 90 ltrs. being in excess by 10 ltrs. 12. The corresponding register kept in the normal course of the business of the respondents by the other officers or clerks of the respondents gives a complete lie to the case of the petitioner. They substantiate the charge made against the petitioner. The entire evidence has been considered by the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority has based his findings upon the report of the Inquiry Officer. The entire transactions have been collated by this Court to satisfy its conscience. The Inquiry Officer's report shows how this collation was done by the Inquiry Officer upon seeing the aforesaid documents for both these charges. Once the collation is seen to be recorded in excess by the petitioner as made out in the charge, the petitioner's conduct becomes clear. 13. There is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed.