Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned notice/order dated 5.3.94 (Annex.2) passed by the District Collector (Relief), Churu, respondent No.2. (2). Learned counsel Shri Joshi for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice/order (Annex.2) is in clear violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the same be set aside. Mr. Joshi also submitted that due to political pressure the impugned order was passed and in the impugned notice/order no specific instances have been made that in what manner any irregularity or illegality was committed by the petitioner. (3). Before dealing with the aforesaid contentions raised by Mr. Joshi, I must narrate few facts of the case. The petitioner was former Secretary of Shri Gopal Goshala, Sri Dungargarh, which was a social institution meant to render free servi- ces to the needy persons of the society in the days of famine and natural calamities. The petitioner had to distribute the fodder during the acute famine in the region at no loss no profit basis. However, instead of distributing it to the poor needy persons, he mis-appropriated the amount running in to more than lakh of rupees by preparing forged documents. On the close scrutiny of the documents, it was found that the petitioner had mis- appropriated the amount. Hence, he was served with the impugned notice/order (Annex.2) calling upon him to pay the amount failing which the said amount will be recovered from him as per the Rules. Before approaching this Court, the petitioner replied to the said notice/order on 9.3.94 (Annex.3) and also tried to create a case in his favour by producing a letter (Annex.4) alleged to have been written by him to the Manager of the society to look after the work so as to save himself from his liabilities. It is nothing but an after thought. (4). It is a matter of documentary evidence and from the reply affdavit it is clear that after thorough inquiry conducted by a highly responsible officer of the State it was found against the petitioner that he mis-appropriate the amount which was to be used for providing fodder to the animals. After filing the reply (Annex.3) to the notice, the petitioner has rushed to this Court by way of this writ petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (5). Now, I will deal with the second submission raised by Mr. After filing the reply (Annex.3) to the notice, the petitioner has rushed to this Court by way of this writ petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (5). Now, I will deal with the second submission raised by Mr. Joshi first viz. that due to political pressure, the impugned notice (Annex.2) was issued against the petitioner. There is no concrete material on the record to show that due to political pressure, the petitioner was sought to be made victim. The allegations made in the petition are absolutely vague. No allegation was made against the concerned authority who has come to the conclusion that the petitioner mis-appro- priated the amount. There is no question of breach of principles of natural justice in this type of cases when the authority has come to the conclusion on the basis of the documentary evidence including the documents used by the petitioner for the purpose of appropriation of amount found to be forged. It is clear from Annexure-4 that as an after thought this document was concocted by the petitioner. (6). This Court cannot exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in favour of such an dis-honest person, who has not even spared the amount which was to be used for speechless animals who were starving during the time of acute famine in the region. It does not lie in the mouth of persons like petitioner that the impugned notice (Annex.2) was issued in viola- tion of principles of natural justice. (7). It is clear that the averments made in the petition are strongly controverted in the reply affidavit filed by the respondents. When there are disputed questions of facts raised in the petition then this Court will not like to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (8). In view of the above discussion, there in no merit in this petition. Accordingly, it fails and is dismissed.