Having considered the rival contentions, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The issues raised on behalf of the appellant, of there being no evidence produced during the inquiry and his continuation in service for a long period, are fit to be rejected. From the Inquiry Report, it is clear that the appellant had not asked for adducing any evidence and, thus, the authorities themselves could not have examined any witness on behalf of the appellant. Further, there was no question of there being any evidence led on behalf of the authorities, as there cannot be any evidence for proving something which is not in existence inasmuch as when the stand of the authority was that there was no advertisement or written or physical examination or recommendation of a duly constituted Board, there could not be any evidence with them to show that the same was not done and thus, obviously, the onus was on the appellant to dispute such fact of non-existence of the advertisement, written and physical examination as well as recommendation of a duly constituted Board, either by producing documents or leading oral evidence. Thus, the same not having been done by the appellant himself, the Inquiry Report cannot be said to be bad in law. This being the factual position, in the present case, the decision of the
