Judgment :- M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. This writ petition challenges the order of the Administrative Tribunal made in O.A.No.522 of 2007 whereby the orders made by the third petitioner herein and thereupon affirmed by the second petitioner herein were set aside. 2. The writ petition came to be filed under the following circumstances. During the year 1996, when the second respondent was working as a Stores Lineman, he was served with a memo on 29.2.1996 by the Sub Divisional officer, Telecom, calling for explanation as to certain shortage of store items. A reply was given by the second respondent stating that he was not responsible for such lapses, but he was kept under suspension with effect from 3.6.1996. Following the same, a charge memo was served on him to which, he tendered his explanation. Since, it was found to be not satisfactory, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry on the charges. The Enquiry Officer recorded the finding that all the three charges leveled against the second respondent herein stood proved. A copy of the enquiry report was also served upon him calling for the representation and the second respondent herein has putforth his representation. Not satisfied with the same, an order of punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect, dated 23.4.2002, came to be passed by the second respondent and the same was served upon the second respondent herein. An appeal preferred by the second respondent herein was dismissed upholding the punishment. Thereafter, the second respondent herein preferred a revision before the first petitioner herein who modified the penalty of dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement. Under such circumstances, the second respondent herein filed the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal has set aside the orders and also observed that if considered necessary, a fresh enquiry could be conducted on the charges levelled against applicant/second respondent herein. Under such circumstances, aggrieved Department has brought forth this writ petition. 3. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, the learned counsel would submit that the order of the Tribunal was erroneous. It is an admitted position that all the procedural formalities were followed. Under such circumstances, aggrieved Department has brought forth this writ petition. 3. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, the learned counsel would submit that the order of the Tribunal was erroneous. It is an admitted position that all the procedural formalities were followed. Since the reply given to the charge memo was not satisfactory, an enquiry was ordered and the enquiry report would clearly indicate that he was the person who has misappropriated the items kept in the stores by making false entries in the store issue slips. During the relevant time, he was the only person under whose control the stores was actually functioning. 4. The contentions putforth by the second respondent herein before all the authorities are that no witnesses were examined by the Department to prove the charges; sufficient opportunity was not given to him and thus, it was violative of principles of natural justice. These contentions were rightly rejected by the authorities below. Hence, there is no need for any interference by the Tribunal. When the charge memo was served upon the second respondent herein and when the charges were to be enquired, there was no list of witnesses. All the documents were to be marked, accordingly, the documents were marked through the Presenting Officer. The second respondent herein was given full opportunity. Contrarily, it was contended that these documents were not proved. Apart from that, it was felt by the Authority that there is no need for examination of any witnesses and no witnesses were examined, but it cannot be found fault with. Added further learned counsel, in the instant case, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed and the revisional authority has modified the same. All these aspects were not actually taken into consideration by the Tribunal but the Tribunal has set aside the orders. Under such circumstances, it requires consideration of this Court by way of this writ petition. 5. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also looking into the materials available, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case where the writ petition requires an admission. 6. Admittedly, the second respondent was working as the Stores Lineman and during the year 1996, he was served with a memo. 6. Admittedly, the second respondent was working as the Stores Lineman and during the year 1996, he was served with a memo. Since the reply given by him was found not satisfactory, a charge memo was served upon him containing three charges. He also putforth his reply but the authorities were not satisfied and ordered for enquiry. Till this extent, no defect is noticed. When the enquiry was conducted, a bunch of documents were marked through the Presenting Officer. It is pertinent to point out that those documents were not authenticated documents. It is also noticed by the Tribunal that the delinquent was not only the person who signed in the documents but other persons have also signed in those documents. The charge was to the effect that there was bogus entries made in the store issue slips. It would be clear that the delinquent was not the only person who signed in the documents but there are others who have also signed with him in the documents, but no action was taken on any one of those persons. So far as the documents which were marked is concerned, those documents are not authenticated and genuine and the procedure which was followed was simply marking the documents as if it were true and genuine which would clearly indicate that those documents should not have been marked. No witnesses were examined on the side of the department and the charges levelled against the second respondent/delinquent was only on those documents which were marked without following the procedure. All those documents were found to be neither authenticated nor genuine. Apart from that, the case of the department remains not proved. The Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that the charges stood proved and subsequently, it was also affirmed by the Appellate Forum. The Revisional Authority has not taken into account that the documents relied on by the Department were not proved and there is nothing to indicate that those documents were authenticated or genuine and no witness was examined to prove the charges which is violative of principles of natural justice. In short, it can be said that it is not proper. The Revisional Authority has not noticed the same but modified the punishment, which in the considered opinion of the Court, would not meet the ends of justice. In short, it can be said that it is not proper. The Revisional Authority has not noticed the same but modified the punishment, which in the considered opinion of the Court, would not meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the appraisement of all the above, has set aside the orders, at the same time, the Tribunal was conscious of the fact that it was a case where fresh enquiry could be ordered in view of the infirmity and flaw noticed. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with or to disturb the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition requires an order of dismissal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 o 2009 is closed.