JUDGMENT : S.C. VARMA, J. 1. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the learned counsel for the parties have no objection if the writ petition itself is disposed of finally. 2. Heard Sri Mohd. Jafar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Sri V. M. Sahai, learned Counsel for the Respondents and I purpose to dispose of this petition finally. 3. The Petitioner was a confirmed conductor with the erstwhile Uttar Pradesh Government Roadways and he stood absorbed in the same capacity with the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (herein after referred to as the 'Corporation') 4. The Petitioner was issued a chargesheet dated 30-3-1981 in respect of two charges relating to two different incidents. The first charge relate to the incident of 6-3-1987 in respect of bus number UGR-563 on Kanpur-Jhansi route of which the Petitioner was conductor and eighteen passengers were found to be travelling without ticket. The Petitioner misbehaved with the checking staff and instigated the passengers to abuse and create violence on the checking staff. By carrying passengers without ticket the Petitioner had put the Corporation to financial loss. 5. The second charge was in respect of incident on 26-10-1984 of bus number 1409 on Sitapur-Kanpur route in which twenty passengers were found to be travelling without ticket by the checking staff and on ticket number-295529 only destination Chitraknt Banda was mentioned, without indicating fare and number of passengers. The Petitioner obstructed in performance of duties by the checking staff and he also pressurised the checking staff through the passengers not to report correct incident and he committed fraud against the department and this conduct was not in accordance with the Code of Conduct laid down in the Service Regulations. 6. A chargesheet was issued by Sri H. K. Singh, Regional Manager. The Petitioner was also suspended by order dated 30-10-1987. The Joint Regional Manager, Chunniganj, Kanpur, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. Later on one Sri V. C. Jain, retired District Judge, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer vide order dated 22-5-1987. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the chargesheet dated 3-6-1987, in which he denied the charges. The Petitioner was then served with a show cause notice of proposed punishment dated 11-12-1987 asking for his explanation as to why he should not be removed from service. The show cause notice also accompanied with the inquiry report. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the chargesheet dated 3-6-1987, in which he denied the charges. The Petitioner was then served with a show cause notice of proposed punishment dated 11-12-1987 asking for his explanation as to why he should not be removed from service. The show cause notice also accompanied with the inquiry report. The Petitioner submitted his reply which was received on 25-1-1988 and by an order of removal dated 25-1-1988 he was removed from service by Sri H. K. Singh Samanya Prabandhak. 7. The order of removal has been challenged mainly on the ground that order of removal passed by Samanya Prabandhak, has not been passed by the appointing authority and is thus illegal, void and without jurisdiction. The show cause notice of proposed punishment dated 7-12-1987 was received on 24-12-1987, in which the Petitioner 'was required to submit his reply within fifteen days of receipt of the notice. The Petitioner by an application dated 7-1-1988 prayed for two weeks' further time, which expired on 24-1-1988 and 24-1-1987 being Sunday, the same was filed only on 25-1-1988, But without considering the reply the impugned punishment order was passed on 25-1-1988 which is also arbitrary and not in accordance with the law. 8. Lastly, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he had prayed that the Deputy General Meager Sri T. Swamp, may also be summoned to show is, to why he did not sign the pay bill and the checking' report when he himself wars present on the spot. The non production of Sri T, Swarup has deprived the Petitioner of reasonable opportunity and the order is in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also tried to assail the findings on the charges levelled against the Petitioner, on merit. I am not indeed to interfere in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to consider the objections relating to the merit of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the punishing authority. 10. According to the Petitioner the power delegated by the Board in its meeting dated 20-12-1986 the appointing authority of the Petitioner is the Regional Manager. learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is ho post in the Corporation of 'Samanya Prabandhak'. 10. According to the Petitioner the power delegated by the Board in its meeting dated 20-12-1986 the appointing authority of the Petitioner is the Regional Manager. learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is ho post in the Corporation of 'Samanya Prabandhak'. The show cause notice submitted by Samanya Prabandhak and the order of removal dated 25-1-1988 passed by the Samanya Prabandhak is not by the appointing authority. 11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents it has been alleged that the appointing authority/punishing authority of the petitioner is the General Manager, Grade-II, But because in all other cities there are Regional Manager and only at Kanpur and Lucknow there are General Manager Grade-II, who are authorised to function as the Regional Manager also, and, as such the order of removal, has been passed by the Competent authority. The respondents also brought on record the order dated 2-7-1987 passed by the Managing Director; in which it has been ordered that Sri H. K. Singh was going promoted to the post of General Manager Grade-II in Kanpur region and at the same time he will also function as Regional Manager, Kanpur Region. Kanpur and will have all the administrative and financial control as the Regional Manager, Kanpur region. A copy of the order dated 2-7-1987 has been filed annexure-1 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by Sri R. J. Tiwari the order dated 2-7-1987 has been passed by the General Manager Sri V. K. Mittal, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub section (2) of section 12 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. 12. By an order dated 17-10-1986 Sri V. K. Mittal, Managing Director of the Corporation has been delegated powers under sub section (1) of section 12 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, by the Board of Directors to further delegate such duties and functions to the officer and authorities, as may be necessary. The power so delegated by the Managing Director to the lower authorities were required to be exercised and performed under his control and supervision in accordance with the general or special orders, instructions or guideline made, given or issued from time to time in this respect. 13. The power so delegated by the Managing Director to the lower authorities were required to be exercised and performed under his control and supervision in accordance with the general or special orders, instructions or guideline made, given or issued from time to time in this respect. 13. If we examine the order dated 2-7-1987 it will reveal that Sri H. K. Singh, Regional Manager of the Corporation at Kanpur was promoted in the vacancy in Technical branch on the post of Deputy General Manage in the grade of Rs. 1840-2400/- and he was posted, as Samanya Prabandhak Grade-II at Kanpur region. Further in exercise of powers conferred on the Managing Director, Sri Singh was allowed to perform administrative and financial functions, which he was performing in the capacity as the Regional Manager. The said appointment was on probation for one year and on his work and conduct not being found satisfactory, be was liable to be reverted. The service rendered on the post of Deputy General Manager would be in accordance with the rules framed u/s 49 of Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. Thus by the aforesaid order Sri H. K. Singh was performing duel functions as Samanya Prabandhak Grade-II a post equivalent to the. Deputy General Manager, as also Regional Manager for pet forming administrative and financial duties on this post and was holding duel charge simultaneously on both the posts. It can not be denied that Sri H. K. Singh was performing his duties on the post of Regional Manager for administrative and financial functions which he was earlier performing. 14. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner could not point out any defect or lecuna in the power so delegated by the General Manager Sri V. K. Mittal to Sri H. K. Singh, purported to be under sub section (2) of section 12 of the Road Transport Corporations Act. The impugned order of removal and the chargesheet issued by Sri H. K. Singh in exercise of his power as the Regional Manager, Kanpur region, performing administrative and financial functions/duties on this posts, has been duly passed by the appointing authority and does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity. 15. The impugned order of removal and the chargesheet issued by Sri H. K. Singh in exercise of his power as the Regional Manager, Kanpur region, performing administrative and financial functions/duties on this posts, has been duly passed by the appointing authority and does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity. 15. The argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner can not be accepted that he was promoted as Deputy General Manager on the post of Samanya Prabandhak Grade-II, a higher post, which was equivalent to the appellate authority and he could not have performed the functions of the Regional Manager. It is quite common that an officer holds the duel charge as sometimes on account of non-availability of regular appointee on the two posts the same officer is allowed to function on the post already held by him as also the promoted post till arrangement of regular appointee on this posts is made available. Moreover there is specific order dated 2-7-1987 delegating the powers in favour of Sri H. K. Singh by the General Manager, which leaves no room for doubt that at the relevant time he was also performing the duties of Regional Manager, Kanpur region. 16. The second argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also can not be accepted. The Petitioner has submitted his reply to the chargesheet and he participated in the inquiry proceedings conducted by the Inquiry officer and he was afforded reasonable opportunity. The Petitioner was admittedly served with a show cause notice of proposed punishment dated 17-12-1987 on 24-12-1987 allowing two weeks 'time to file reply from the date of service of the notice. By an application dated 7-1-1988 the Petitioner prayed two weeks' further time According to learned Counsel for the Petitioner he was informed on 9-1-1988 that fifteen days further time had been allowed and he can submit his reply by 24-8-1988 which was Sunday and after the explanation was submitted on 25-1-1988, the same was not considered and the order of removal itself was passed on 25-1-1988. From the application dated 7-1-1988 two weeks 'expired on 22-1-1988 and there is no reason as to why explanation could not be submitted within this period. From the application dated 7-1-1988 two weeks 'expired on 22-1-1988 and there is no reason as to why explanation could not be submitted within this period. There is no material on record to indicate as to who directed the Petitioner that he could submit his explanation by 24-1-1988 and this averment in the supplementary affidavit has come for the first time, which can not be accepted. The Petitioner cannot take the advantage of his own default and it is very clearly established that the Petitioner did not file his reply within the time granted to him on his own request and there was no error on the part of the punishing authority in considering the explanation submitted by the Petitioner within stipulated period. 17. The third argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also cannot be accepted. It is clear from the chargesheet and the material on which charges have been framed and reliance has been placed, neither the statement of Sri T. Swarup, General Manager, was taken on record nor he was produced as a witness on behalf of the department. It may be that he was present on the spot alongwith the checking staff but it was not necessary that he should have signed the checking report or would have participated in the checking proceedings. There is nothing on record to establish that the checking itself was conducted under the guidance or instruction of Sri Swarup. 18. In these circumstances the presence of Sri T. Swarup, Deputy General Manager on the aforesaid date would not be of any advantage to the Petitioner in compelling him to give his statement or version on behalf of the department. The Petitioner has also not desired Sri T. Swarup, Deputy General Manager, to be produced as a witness on his behalf. In the reply to the charges or in the inquiry proceeding before the inquiry officer the Petitioner did not make any such claim for production of Sri Swarup, Deputy General Manager for recording his statement or for cross examination. There is absolutely no material on record to establish that any demand was made by the Petitioner for production of Sri T. Swarup during the course of inquiry or for his cross-examination. It is only in the reply to the notice of proposed punishment this allegation has been made which itself has not been considered. 19. There is absolutely no material on record to establish that any demand was made by the Petitioner for production of Sri T. Swarup during the course of inquiry or for his cross-examination. It is only in the reply to the notice of proposed punishment this allegation has been made which itself has not been considered. 19. It has been stated that the applicant wished that the Deputy General Manager may also be summoned to establish that he did not sign the checking report even though the entire incident took place in his presence, indicates the falsity of the report. As the Deputy General Manager did not appear he was deprived of this opportunity and there is violation of principles of natural justice and the impugned order is in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. I am of the view that in these circumstances the Petitioner has been denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself. In the impugned order the punishing authority has observed that the charge of the Petitioner that illegal gratification was demanded by the checking staff does not appear to be probable as the Deputy General Manager himself was present and was sitting in the Staff Car. This observation alone is not sufficient to hold that the Petitioner was deprived of opportunity as Sri Swarup did not appear in the inquiry proceeding. 20. Apart from the aforesaid contention considered by me I have also examined the report of the inquiry officer and that of the Punishing authority which has been passed in great detail, after considering the relevant material consisting of the Petitioner's explanation, report of the Inquiry officer and the evidence on record. The charges on merit against the Petitioner are fully established to the extent that the Petitioner was carrying unauthorised passengers without ticket for illegal gain and on being intercepted by the Checking staff be misbehaved and also instigated the passengers to prevent the checking staff in performing their duties. The charges are fully borne out from the material on record and the impugned order of removal does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The Petitioner has not been denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.