in rough calculation memo, to which, he is not entitled to. In his rough calculation the appellant claims deficiency of Rs.72/- and he has to substantially prove his case with authenticated documents and not by rough calculation and he fails to discuss how Rs.72/- is shortfall and in what way it is shortfall and whether the basic and DA is calculated properly. Having regard to the same, no discussion was made by the authority and the contention of appellant/employee was accepted in whole without substantial discussion. The 1st respondent by way of additional typed set filed the salary slip of the appellant/employee of November 2020 before the Court to establish that the rough manual calculation made by the workman in Ex.W1 is wrong and Rs.50/- was added on his own to play fraud on Court. Thus the writ court in para 9 of the order observed that the authority erred in finding and allowed the writ petition on other terms. Therefore, the order of dismissal imposed on the appellant/employee is correct, however, the 2nd respondent /approval authority rejected the approval petition pointing out that the attendance register has not been marked and the person who maintains the attendance register has not been examined and the authority to whom the appellant/employee is alleged to have orally informed about 7 of 13
