- (1.)RESPONDENT no.1 -P.C. Joseph was proceeded against departmentally, and was inflicted with a minor punishment, vide an order dated 11.02.1999. He assailed the above order by preferring Original Application No.1183 of 1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (hereinafter referred to as the 'Administrative Tribunal'). The Administrative Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by respondent no.1, vide an order dated 3.10.2001. The order dated 3.10.2001 was affirmed on merits, by the High Court through the impugned judgment dated 23.1.2008. The High Court, inter alia, held as under:
"We heard the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent also. Going by the enquiry report, we are of the view that the criticism leveled against it by the CAT is fully justified. We notice that no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked in the enquiry. After holding that the delinquent is entitled to get the benefit of doubt, Signature Not Verified simply it was held that the charges against him are established. So, we also endorse the view of the CAT that Digitally signed by Parveen Kumar Chawla Date: 2014.06.12 the finding was entered against the applicant, based on no 13:56:23 IST Reason: evidence. The contention of the writ petitioners that other materials were also relied on for finding the applicant guilty, cannot be accepted. Unless those materials are put to the delinquent, reliance, if any, made on other documents, will vitiate the proceedings."

(2.)THE above factual position was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant, when he was confronted with the same during the course of hearing.
The solitary contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant was, that the respondent should have availed of his appellate remedy before filing the Original Application before the Administrative Tribunal. The submission advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant, at this point in time, cannot be accepted, especially in view of the above -narrated position, namely, that no witnesses were examined, and no documents were marked during the departmental enquiry conducted against the respondent.

(3.)IN view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed.