JUDGMENT : B. R. GAVAI, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 27-10-2005 in Original Application No. 2099/2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal; thereby dismissing the Original Application filed by the present petitioner. 3. The petitioner who claims to belong to "Halba" Scheduled Tribe, was appointed as a Senior Surveyor by the respondent No. 3 some time in the year 1977. It however appears that finding that the petitioner had submitted as many as three different certificates of three different authorities and since there was no material to substantiate that the petitioner belongs to "Halba" Scheduled Tribe, initiated departmental proceedings against him. 4. In the departmental proceedings, it was found that the claim of the petitioner was not genuine and the petitioner had fraudulently obtained the appointment against a reserved category post. The Disciplinary authority, therefore, imposed a penalty from removal from service. The Appellate authority also confirmed the same. However, the Revisional authority i.e. Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 27-1-1998 quashed the order passed by the first authority as well as appellate authority and remanded the matter to the Inquiry Officer. 5. After remand, again, the Disciplinary authority found that the petitioner had obtained the appointment against a reserved category post, on the basis of a fraudulent claim and, as such, maintained the penalty of removal from service. The Appellate authority too confirmed the same. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application. Hence the present petition. 6. Shri Salim Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Revisional authority, while remanding the matter, had specifically observed that the Disciplinary authority had not given an opportunity to the petitioner to put up the defence case. The Disciplinary authority had fell in a grave error in refusing to consider the material placed by the petitioner in his defence. He submits that the orders passed by the Disciplinary authority are in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice. 7. Ms. S. S. Pathak, learned Advocate holding for Shri Rohit Deo, on the contrary, submits that though it was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe, his claim was not sent to the Scrutiny Committee for verification and despite opportunity, he has failed to produce on record the original certificate. 8. 7. Ms. S. S. Pathak, learned Advocate holding for Shri Rohit Deo, on the contrary, submits that though it was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe, his claim was not sent to the Scrutiny Committee for verification and despite opportunity, he has failed to produce on record the original certificate. 8. We have perused the material on record. It could be seen that after the proceedings were remanded before the Inquiry Officer, a specific case was made out by the petitioner that his claim is not sent to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. On the basis of the request made by the petitioner that his claim should be sent to the Committee, the petitioner was called upon to submit his original certificate/s issued by the Naib Tahsildar Wardha; so also Taluqa Executive Magistrate, Bhandara so that the same could be sent to the competent authority for considering the claim of the petitioner. However in spite of granting sufficient time the petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, failed to produce the original certificate/s for sending the same to the Scrutiny Committee. Not only this, but the material on record would reveal that the petitioner had confessed before the Divisional Commissioner that he belongs to 'Koshti' community and not 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe. Not only that but the Collector, Wardha, upon conducting an enquiry also found that the claim of the petitioner as belonging to Halba, Scheduled Tribe is devoid of any substance. It was found that he belongs to 'Koshti' community. In that view of the matter, it can be clearly seen that though the petitioner had ample opportunity, failed to substantiate his claim. For the reasons best known to him he has not produced the original certificate which could have been sent to Scrutiny Committee for verification. 9. The scope of interference in the writ jurisdiction, while considering the correctness of the departmental proceedings, is very limited. Unless it is found that the proceedings have been conducted in an illegal manner or it is found that the procedure followed is in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice or unless it is found that the finding are totally perverse, it will not be permissible for this Court to interfere in its writ jurisdiction. Nothing of this sort has have noticed. Nothing of this sort has have noticed. In that view of the matter, the petition being sans merit, deserve dismissal, which we direct. Rule discharged.