JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - Petitioner was selected by the Selections Committee for being appointed as Conductor in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Varanasi Region, Varanasi. On the basis of the aforesaid Selection the petitioners name was placed on the waiting list and he was being offered appointment from time to time whenever a vacancy arose. At the .relevant time, the petitioner was working in Ghazipur Depot. On 24-6-1988, the petitioners name was struck off from the waiting panel. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order to the Deputy General Manager, Eastern Zone. The aforesaid appeal was also rejected on 27-6-1988. It is these two orders passed by the Officers of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation which are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. At the out-set, it may be mentioned that at the admission stage the respondents were served and counter ,and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. The writ petition is thus being decided finally in accordance with the Rules of the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has only urged one point in this writ petition. It has been urged that under the impugned orders while striking down the name of the petitioner from the waiting penal, the incident which is alleged to have happen according to the respondents on 11-3-1988 has also been taken into account when no opportunity at all as contemplated by Regulation 26 had been afforded to the petitioner. 4. It may be mentioned that Sri S.K. Sharma learned counsel appearing for the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation has frankly conceded that under Regulation 26 the petitioner will be entitled to get up opportunity. Learned counsel has, however, urged that in respect of the incident which had taken place on 15-2-1983 the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity and the first Charge was enough for removal of the petitioner s name from the Waiting Panel. The argument precisely is that even though the second charge is not taken into account this court should not interfere in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the first charge was serious enough for removal of the petitioner's name from the Waiting Panel. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length we are of the opinion that the appellate order clearly recites about.two incidents which had occurred on 15-2-1988 and 11-3-1988. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length we are of the opinion that the appellate order clearly recites about.two incidents which had occurred on 15-2-1988 and 11-3-1988. As has been observed above no opportunity had been given in respect of this incident which had taken place on 11-3-1986. in respect of the incident which had taken place on 15-2-1988 the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 10-3-1988. From the entire reading of the appellate order it is not clear as to what view the appellate authority would have taken in case the second incident was not before him. The order passed by the Appellate Authority in our opinion cannot be sustained in any view of law and is able to be quashed. 6. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24-3-1988 and 27-6-1988 are quashed. It is being made clear that it will be open for the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner for affording him an opportunity in respect of the second incident and then pass orders after considering the explanation of the petitioner regarding both the incidents in accordance with law. Petitioner will file a certified copy of this order before the Regional Manager, U.P. Mate Road Transport Corporation, Varanasi within ten days who will within a week afford an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation regarding the second incident and the entire proceedings will be concluded by the aforesaid authority within a period of one month as far as possible.