ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The present writ petition assails order dated 10/05/2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dismissing O.A. No. 369/2008 declining to interfere with the order of dismissal dated 04/07/2008. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he never offered his candidature for appointment as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. He had applied for and was appointed as a General Category candidate. His promotion orders also show him as a General Category candidate. He has not obtained any benefits on account of reservation. The departmental proceedings were proceduraly flawed as he was not given the necessary documents asked for by him and consequently he refused to participate in the proceedings leading to an ex-parte finding. If relevant documents were not supplied to the delinquent in a departmental proceeding on basis of which the charges are sought to be proved, prejudice is apparent on the face of it and therefore the order impugned is not sustainable. 3. We have considered the submissions on behalf of petitioner. 4. An order of punishment arising out of a departmental proceeding is not to be examined by the Tribunal or the Court as an appellate authority. Judicial review of such order of punishment is confined primarily to the decision making process. If there are errors in the decision making process, the final order will stand vitiated. Finding of facts arrived at in the departmental proceedings also cannot be examined in the garb of judicial review to reassess the evidence unless they are perverse or beyond the charges framed. 5. In a departmental proceeding charges are to be proved on preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If there is the slightest evidence available, the charge can be sustained. There may be cases where the facts are so eloquent and speak for themselves that there may not be any need for further evidence. At times documents may themselves be evidence. A delinquent facing a departmental enquiry is not entitled or required to be supplied all and sundry documents. Whether a document is required to be supplied or not and the nature of prejudice caused thereby, whether it was relevant to the enquiry or not, are all questions of fact which will vary from one case to another. The petitioner was permitted to have a defence representative. He refused to cross examine the departmental witness. Whether a document is required to be supplied or not and the nature of prejudice caused thereby, whether it was relevant to the enquiry or not, are all questions of fact which will vary from one case to another. The petitioner was permitted to have a defence representative. He refused to cross examine the departmental witness. If he was of the opinion that a relevant document had not been supplied, and he stood to be prejudiced he ought to have pursued legal remedies. 6. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for having obtained employment in the Scheduled Tribe category during a selection process held for filling up reserved backlog vacancies. In his service book at column No. 5 his category was mentioned as Scheduled Tribe. The service book was signed by the petitioner also. The appointment was in 1984. The petitioner did not dispute the genuineness of the service book neither did he deny his signature. He claims to have represented on 24/09/1997. The subject-matter of his letter was for correction of mistake in the service book. He acknowledges that the words 'Scheduled Tribe' were written in his service book. He then claims that it is wrong and that he belongs to the General Category. Therefore it may be deleted and he may be categorised as an employee from the General Category. 7. Entries in a service book at the time of appointment are based on the information furnished by a candidate. They are not figment of imagination by the employer. The petitioner does not dispute his signature on the service book. In other words, it was in confirmation of the entry in column 5 that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe. It is not open for him to contend to the contrary more so when it is not even his case in his representation that the entry in column 5 was a forgery or an interpolation made subsequently in a different handwriting or in a different ink. No mala fides have been alleged. Entries in a service book carry a presumption about their correctness under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act. that it was filled up correctly in the normal course of official duty. It is of course a rebutable presumption. The onus lies upon the petitioner to rebut the presumption. He has failed to do so. 8. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. that it was filled up correctly in the normal course of official duty. It is of course a rebutable presumption. The onus lies upon the petitioner to rebut the presumption. He has failed to do so. 8. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed.