M. KATJU, D. R. CHAUDHARY, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is challenging the Impugned order of dismissal dated 25. 10. 1996 Annexure-20 to the writ petition. The petitioner was appointed by the Committee of Management of respondent No. 1 as Spinning Master by order dated 19. 5. 1986. Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He was thereafter promoted as Production Manager vide Annexure-2 and he was again promoted as Secretary/general Manager on 12. 10. 1988. He was thereafter transferred to various mills and worked as Secretary/general Manager and has alleged that he was given commendation certificate. ( 3 ) A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner as stated in paragraph 10 of the petition and by letter dated 9. 8-1986 he was called upon to give his explanation in respect of certain charges of Irregularities vide Annexure-11. The same day he was also suspended vide annexure-12 to the petition. The petitioner gave a reply but he v/as given charge-sheet dated 12. 9. 1996 vide Annexure-13. Thereafter an enquiry was held and he was found guilty of several charges and by the impugned order he was dismissed. Hence this petition. ( 4 ) THE finding of guilt is a finding of fact and we cannot Interfere with findings of fact in writ jurisdiction. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner has been found gultty of several charges and the mill had to suffer huge losses due to the misconduct of the petitioner. Some of the findings are that the petitioner deliberately misled the management. e. g. , that the petitioner had excluded the carrying cost of cotton to the extent of Ks. 8. 64 lacs in the mixing cost. Similarly it has been found that the petitioner purchased several items of store and spares on the basis of old quotations instead of having invited fresh quotations. There are various other findings of fact on the charges against the petitioner which shows that during his tenure the performance of the mill nosedived abruptly resulting in huge losses to the mill. ( 5 ) THIS is not a fit case for Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed. .