JUDGMENT : R.R.K. Trivedi, J. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 27.6.1990 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), served on petitioner on 13.8.1990, by which petitioner has been dismissed from service. 2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that petitioner Murlidhar Srivastava was serving as Assistant Engineer, in Irrigation Department of State of Uttar Pradesh. He was served a memo of charge dated 20.10.1987 with regard to charges of misconduct allegedly committed by him during the period 1.11.1982 to 10.7.1983 while he was posted as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Division, Gonda, at Bahraich. The charge memo contained 15 charges. Evidence relied on in support of each charge was mentioned in the memo of charge. In the last paragraph of the memo of charge, petitioner was required to indicate in writing whether he wanted to appear and examine himself orally. If he wants to examine or cross-examine any witness, then specify the names of such witnesses along with their addresses in the written statement. It would be appropriate to reproduce the last paragraph of the charge memo for correct appreciation : ^^lkFk gh vki ls ;g vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd vki v/kksgLrk{kjh dks fyf[kr :i ls ;g Hkh lwfpr djsa fd D;k vki Lo;a mifLFkr gksdj ekSf[kd c;ku nsuk pkgrs gSa A ;fn vki fdlh lk{kh dh ijh{kk vFkok izfr ijh{kk djuk pkgrs gksa rks vki vius fyf[kr ds lkFk lkf{k;ksa ds uke o irs nsa rFkk lkFk gh lkFk lk{; dk Hkh ladsr nsa ftls izR;sd lk{kh }kjk fn;s tkus dh vis{kk dh tk;sxh A** 3. Petitioner submitted his written statement to the charges on 23.4.1988 along with which he also filed the documentary evidence considered necessary by him for his defence. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 14.6.1988. Respondent No. 1, thereafter, considered the entire material against the petitioner and proposed punishment of dismissal against him for which concurrence was given by U. P. Public Service Commission, vide letter No. 473/6/A.D.C./S-7/89-90, dated 25.5.1990. After receiving concurrence of the Commission, respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated 27.6.1990 dismissing the petitioner from service which has been challenged in this petition. 4. We have heard Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents. After receiving concurrence of the Commission, respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated 27.6.1990 dismissing the petitioner from service which has been challenged in this petition. 4. We have heard Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents. The challenge raised on behalf of the petitioner against the impugned order is confined to the solitary ground that petitioner was not afforded adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing as required under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India before passing the impugned order. The submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner has not been given opportunity to cross-examine any witness nor was he allowed opportunity to examine his defence witnesses. The requirement of reasonable opportunity of being heard contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution before passing the order of dismissal cannot be said to have been satisfied merely by allowing" opportunity of submitting explanation and thereafter passing the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has placed reliance on the following cases : 1. Union of India v. T.R. Verma AIR 1957 SC 582. 2. Khem Chand Vs. The Union of India (UOI )and Others, AIR 1958 SC 300 3. Bachhittar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395 4. The State of Punjab Vs. Bhagat Ram, (1975) 1 SCC 155 5. Town Area Committee, Jalalabad Vs. Jagdish Prasad and Others, (1979) 1 SCC 60 6. Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab 1991 SCC 998. 7. State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thiru K.V. Perumal and others, (1996) 5 SCC 474 5. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submitted that it is not correct to say that petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing. Learning standing counsel pointed out the last paragraph of the memo of charge and submitted that petitioner was specifically required to name the witnesses whom he wanted to examine or cross-examine during inquiry. However, in his written statement or by any application made subsequently he did not specify any witness for examination. It has also been submitted that during whole of the inquiry no oral evidence of any witness has been recorded. The charges against the petitioner were based on documentary evidence as was mentioned in the memo of charge. However, in his written statement or by any application made subsequently he did not specify any witness for examination. It has also been submitted that during whole of the inquiry no oral evidence of any witness has been recorded. The charges against the petitioner were based on documentary evidence as was mentioned in the memo of charge. Petitioner extensively inspected the original documents on 19.12.1997, also took photo copies and along with his written statement petitioner filed large number of documents in his defence. In these circumstances, the petitioner was afforded ad equate/reasonable opportunity of hearing and the order does not suffer from any error of law. 6. By order dated 3.4.1997, learned standing counsel was granted time to file supplementary counter-affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the inquiry report dated 14.6.1988. As the supplementary counter-affidavit was not filed within the time allowed, on 9.9.1997 the Court required the learned standing counsel to produce the original record of the case including the inquiry report. Learned standing counsel has placed before us the original record regarding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 7. We have thoroughly considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties, and have perused the original record. From a perusal of the original record relating to the inquiry, it is clear that along with his written statement petitioner filed large number of documents in his defence which are at pages 142 to 217 in the record. From the inquiry report dated 14.6.1988 which runs from pages 5 to 34 of the record, it is clear that no oral evidence of any witness was recorded during the whole of the inquiry. Findings of the Inquiry Officer were based on the documents filed in support of the charges by the department and the documents filed by the petitioner in his defence. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not place before us the request made on behalf of the petitioner for cross-examining or examining any witness. No such request was made in the written statement submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner could not place before us any other document or application making such a request. In these facts and circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing. The reasonable opportunity has to be ascertained on the facts of each case. Learned counsel for petitioner could not place before us any other document or application making such a request. In these facts and circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing. The reasonable opportunity has to be ascertained on the facts of each case. Merely, because the oral evidence was not adduced by the other party. It cannot be said that reasonable opportunity was not given. The charges against the petitioner were regarding misappropriation of the Government money by preparing inflated or false bills on the basis of the old work done for which payment was already made. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the charges against the petitioner could be proved by documentary evidence alone. Further, as noted earlier, the petitioner though specifically asked for, did not mention name and address of any witness for examination or cross-examination and now in these proceedings he cannot assail the order on the ground that he has not been given reasonable opportunity of hearing and producing witnesses. 8. We have also considered the cases relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In Union of India v. T.R. Verma AIR 1957 SC 582, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 10 as under : "............................................" "Stating it broadly and without intending it to be exhaustive, it may be observed that rules of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies, that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party, and that no materials should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them." "If these rules are satisfied, the enquiry is not open to attack on the ground that the procedure laid down in the Evidence Act for taking evidence was not strictly followed....." 9. We have examined the original record produced before us in the light of the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court. However, we do not find any violation of the principles of natural justice at any stage. The petitioner was afforded adequate and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the proceedings. He was allowed to inspect the original record. We have examined the original record produced before us in the light of the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court. However, we do not find any violation of the principles of natural justice at any stage. The petitioner was afforded adequate and reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the proceedings. He was allowed to inspect the original record. He was also allowed for taking photo copies of the same. He filed a large number of documents in his defence which have been duly considered by the Enquiry Officer. In the circumstances, we do not find any apparent error on the face of the record calling for our interference with the impugned order. 10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 3.5.1991 is vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs.