Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order, contained in memo No.997 dated 12.7.95, passed by the Collector, Muzaffarpur (respondent No.2) as contained in annexure- 1, whereby the petitioner, has been released from suspension, but after an order imposing punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and further that he would not be entitled to draw any amount other than subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, which the petitioner has already received. It is also directed that a sum of Rs.7,775/- be recovered from the salary of the petitioner, against the shortage of 303 L. P.1trs. of country liquor from the country liquor ware house Muzaffarpur. 2. It appears that the petitioner, while posted as Sub-Inspector of Excise, incharge of the country liquor warehouse, Muzzafarpur, he was placed under suspension on some complaints made against him by different country sprit retail licensees as also on the special report in that regard submitted by Inspector of Excise, East muzaffarpur with the recommendation of Superintendent of Excise, Muzaffarpur (respondent No.3 ). Thereafter a charge report was prepared, which was served on him. vide memo No.599 dated 24.4.95 of respondent No.2 (annexure-3) and the petitioner was directed to submit his show cause within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the same. It is stated that the petitioner received the charge on 3.5.95. Thereafter on 10.5.95 he wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Excise, Muzaffarpur (respondent No.2)for supply of copies of the relevant papers, such as, the complaints filed by the licensees and the enquiry report submitted by the Inspector of Excise, east Muzaffarpur. The petitioner filed an application for leave for medical treatment of his wife at Madras on 31.5.95. It appears that certain documents were supplied to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner claimed to have again written a letter on 1.6.95 to respondent No.2 through respondent no.3 stating therein that whatever copy of the complaint had been supplied by respondent No.3 had no relevancy ana also that the aforementioned special enquiry report had not been supplied to him ana thus, in absence of the documents it was difficult for him to file his show cause. 4. 4. It appears that the Collector (respondent No.2) on 1.6.95 directed the petitioner to file show cause within a week from the date of receipt of the letter through the Superintendent of excise. The petitioner in the meantime, however, proceeded on leave and on his return from Madras he again sent a letter to the Collector (respondent No.2) on 20.6.95 re-iterating his request for supply of documents for enabling him to file show cause and explain charge No.8. He also requested for extension of time for filing snow cause by 7.7.95. On 7.7.95 the petitioner again in his letter to respondent no.2 re-iterated his earlier request. But despite repeated requests, according to the petitioner, the documents were not supplied only for denial of charge No.8. Thereafter the impugned order (annexure-1) was passed on 12.7.95, the validity of which as been assailed in the present writ application. 5. The only point urged on behalf of the petitioner for assailing the impugned order is that non-supply of the documents to the petitioner led to non-filing of the show cause and thus, the impugned order, passed ex parte is in utter violation of principle of natural justice and is fit to be quashed on this ground alone. 6. In the charge-sheet (annexure-3) nine charges were framed, out of which, according to the petitioner himself, he only demanded for the documents in regard to charge No.8 and for no other charge. From perusal of charge No.8 as contained in the charge-sheet it appears that the petitioner was transferred from the liquorware House to the Sadar office of the Superintendent of Excise on the basis of the written report of the Excise Inspector and the complaint received for administrative reasons. The petitioner is alleged to have refused to accept the said order of transfer and the same was returned by him. 7. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment mainly on account of shortage of 303 L. P.1trs of country liquor, the value of which was Rs.7,775/- from the Muzaffarpur liquor warehouse and not on account of refusal to receive the order of transfer by him. 7. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment mainly on account of shortage of 303 L. P.1trs of country liquor, the value of which was Rs.7,775/- from the Muzaffarpur liquor warehouse and not on account of refusal to receive the order of transfer by him. Admittedly, the petitioner did not submit his show cause for four months, although repeated reminders were given to him, so much so that from the impugned order it appears that necessary documents were also given to the petitioner in regard to the charges. From the action of the petitioner it has rightly been found in the impugned order that he had adopted duty dally tactics as he had no explanation for the same. Respondent no.2 appears to have passed the impugned order on the basis of the records as no explanation was submitted by the petitioner despite repeated reminders. 8. In the said circumstances, 1 am unable to hold that there has been any denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and/or the authority has acted in violation of the principle of natural justice. In fact, in the circumstances aforementioned, the petitioner cannot be allowed to plead any violation of natural justice in the instant case. A person, who does not avail the opportunity and avoid filing of written explanation for the charges levelled against him, in my opinion, cannot be permitted to complain later that he has been denied a reasonable opportunity of defending himself and that the disciplinary proceeding conducted against him ex pane had resulted in violation of principle of natural justice. A reference in this connection is made to the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Bank of india V/s. (Sic) reported in 1994 (2)S. C. C.615. 9. Thus, I do not find any merit in the writ application and the same dismissed. Writ Application Dismissed.