S.C. Verma, J.
1. The petitioner who was working on the post of Conductor with the U. P. Road Transport Corporation was removed from service by order dated 20-7-1989. The appeal of the petitioner was also rejected by order dated 25-10-1989. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. The main grounds on which the orders have been assailed are that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the chargesheet dated 18-1-1989 was not at ail considered end the enquiry proceeded ex parte and the Enquiry Officer considered the handwriting and signature on the way bills on the basis of Magnifying Glass as an expert. The petitioner was served with the chargesheet and he submitted his reply to the charges. The Enquiring Officer held the charges being proved in which there was interpolation and overwriting in the way bills and forged tickets were prepared by the conductor on various trips at Bareilly-Lucknow-Kanpur route on 5-3-1038, Bareilly-Katra and Lucknow-Shahjahanpur route on 2-9-1988. The petitioner in his reply has alleged that he had protested his transfer on different route and for that reason the Senior Superintendent was annoyed and he rechecked the way-bills in order to findout the defects and the present enquiry is outcome of the aforesaid incident. The petitioner has further alleged that he deposited the short amount pointed out by the authorities and he has not committed any forgery or overwriting. The petitioner has also claimed that he was not provided photostat copies of all the documents.
3. The petitioner was given show-cause notice for the proposed punishment on 6-5-1989 and he prayed for fifteen days time to submit his reply. The petitioner was allowed fifteen days time on the basis of his request dated 8-6-89. The petitioner again prayed for one month's time by letter dated 23-6-1989. The petitioner even after expiry of one month's time did not furnish any reply. The punishing authority there-alter considered the entire material on record including the reply of the petitioner which has been discussed in detail in the order itself and it was found that the findings of the Enquiring Officer holding the petitioner, guilty of the charges is in accordance with law. The Regional Manager who passed the impugned order of removal from service held that the petitioner, in order to misappropriate the fare had unauthhrisedly made cuttings in the way-bills end the tickets prepared by him and on that basis the charges have been found to be proved and the punishment of removal from service has been inflicted. The petitioner's appeal was also considered in great detail by the appellate authority and thereafter the same was dismissed by order dated 25-10-1989.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully perused the entire record.
5. The petitioner's reply to the chargesheet was considered by the punishing authority and in the order of removal specific reply furnished by the petitioner to the charges, have also been stated. The petitioner was also afforded full opportunity to defend his case. The punishing authority after affording full opportunity to the petitioner and after considering the entire material on record had passed impugned order. The findings of the punishing authority are based on relevant material on record after application of mind. The findings or merit can not be considered in judicial review to the order of removal in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has not been able to point out any procedural defect or non-compliance of the rules. The petitioner has also not been able to place any material to establish that he was not supplied any copy of the document on his demand or he was denied opportunity in any manner.
6. In my opinion, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
7. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.