JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - Being aggrieved against the order of removal, petitioner, who was working as Conductor in U.P.S.R.T.C, and at the relevant time was posted at Unnao, has preferred this writ petition. 2. Factual matrix as set out in the writ petition is that on 30-5-1988 while the petitioner was performing his duties an Ashoha-Unnao route and the bus started from Aahoha at 7.15 A. M. a sudden surprise check took place by the authorities at Lalkhera Stop at 7.15 A.M. where it was found that 19 passengers were travelling without tickets and on the basis of which the petitioner was placed under suspension on 8-6-1988. Being aggrieved against the order of suspension the petitioner preferred writ petition bearing No. 6597/88, which was finally disposed of on 22-8-1988 with the directions to the effect that the charge sheet would be served by the authorities to the petitioner within the period of three weeks from the date of Which the copy of the order is produced before the concerned authorities, the petitioner would submit his reply after two weeks from that date and the enquiry would be completed after a period of three month, provided that the petitioner co-operates with the enquiry and in case the enquiry would not be completed within the period specified, the suspension order would stand revoked. Even before the order was served, the petitioner was served with the charge sheet. The petitioner on 12-9-1988 preferred his reply against the said charge sheet. 3. Main thrust of the petitioner in this writ petition is that during the course of the enquiry he demanded the assistance of Mohd. Mushtaq, Conductor to cross-examine the witnesses. Although the enquiry office permitted Mohd. Mushtaq to act as defence assistant to the petitioner, but that assistance was later on denied to him, as a consequence of which he had no option but to leave the disciplinary proceedings and ultimately ex parte order was passed. It was also stated that the Enquiry Officer was biased against the petitioner. No statement of passengers, who were alleged to be travelling without tickets, was ever recorded Enquiry Officer only examined one witness on 3-10-1988. No witnesses were examined on 24-10-1988, 8-1 i-1988 and 22-11-1988 and the whole case was finished on the date 6-12-1988 as desired and contemplated by the Enquiry Officer. Show cause notice was issued on 9-12-1988. No statement of passengers, who were alleged to be travelling without tickets, was ever recorded Enquiry Officer only examined one witness on 3-10-1988. No witnesses were examined on 24-10-1988, 8-1 i-1988 and 22-11-1988 and the whole case was finished on the date 6-12-1988 as desired and contemplated by the Enquiry Officer. Show cause notice was issued on 9-12-1988. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice on 26-12-i988. In the said reply the petitioner complained that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity to explain his case. He was denied on opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He was also denied the assistance of Bus Conductor Mohd. Mushtaq. 4. In the counter-affidavit it was averred that there existed several reports of corruption against the petitioner, Which were reported by Checking Officer on different dates. It was averred that on 30-5-1988, while the petitioner was conducting the said Bus from Ashoha to Unnao road a checking was done by Sri V.K. Dixit, Asstt. Traffic Inspector in presence Sri A.K Srivastava, Asstt. Regional Manager (City Bus Service) Juhi, alongwith Sri D. P. Misra, A.C. Chaturvedi, (Traffic Inspectors) and on physical checking of the 61 passengers on board including one freedom fighter, 19 passengers were found without tickets, Sri M.N. Quraishi on the same date i.e. 30-5-1988 checked the same Bus and found that the petitioner had not closed the way-bill No. 54894. The petitioner neither put the number of passengers in total, nor put the total amount of fare in the relevant document with the intention to re-sell the tickets which were issued by him in his trip. 5. It was asserted that Sri Jain, retired Districts and Sessions Judge, conducted the enquiry in accordance with law. The petitioner and his representative Mohd. Mushtaq tried to adopt dilatory tactics, so that the proceedings may not be concluded within the period prescribed by the High Court. They created hindrance so that the time limit of three month be expired. The Enquiry Officer asked the petitioner to engage some other representative, but he did not agree, thus there was no alternative left to change the Enquiry Officer. The Petitioner and his representative adopted non-comparative attitude and delaying tactics and it was vehemently denied that the Enquiry Officer was biased. No such complaint was ever brought within the knowledge of the disciplinary authority pertaining to the Enquiry Officer. 6. The Petitioner and his representative adopted non-comparative attitude and delaying tactics and it was vehemently denied that the Enquiry Officer was biased. No such complaint was ever brought within the knowledge of the disciplinary authority pertaining to the Enquiry Officer. 6. I have carefully gone into the order of punishment imposed up the petitioner. The punishing authority passed a very detailed and well reasoned order. The petitioner was given sufficient reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment. If the petitioner adopted dilatory tactics and failed to avail the opportunity offered to credit to him, be has to blame himself for the same. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of Sri K.N. Quraishi on 3-10-1988. On 24-10-1988 when the oath was given to cross-examine V.K. Dixit, the Traffic Inspector, then the authorised representative of the petitioner raised objections, that although he was a witness, but only the reporting officer, hence his statement could not be taken. Similar objections were raised when M. Quraishi was examined on 3-10-1988. The authorised representative of the petitioner created disturbance and tried to interrupt the proceedings, as a result of which tho enquiry had to be adjourned on 22-11-1988. The delinquent himself appeared but demanded time for taking assistance of any other person. The proceedings were adjourned upon bis application on 6-12-1988. On 6-12-1988 only delinquent appeared and preferred an application insisting for taking of assistance of Mohd. Mushtaq and when the application was rejected and the statement of P.K. Dixit was being recorded, he boycotted the proceedings. The statements of P. K-Dixit, R.C. haturvedi and R.K. Srivastava were recorded on oath. From the aforesaid facts it is apparent that the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity, which was given to him. The order passed by the punishing authority does not suffer from any infirmity. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.