ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is an employee of U. P. S. R. T. C. , Etah Region. Farrukhabad, has challenged the order dated 30th june. 1990, whereby the respondent-Corporation after holding regular disciplinary enquiry against the charge levelled against the petitioner passed an order of removal against the petitioner. The petitioner though had a remedy of filing an appeal against the order of removal but have approached this Court. This matter, which was filed in the year, 1990, came up for final hearing/disposal before me and the matter was heard on merits. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent-Corporation though tried to argue that since the petition is not admitted, the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory remedy under the service regulations. In my opinion, interest of justice would demand that the matter be decided on merits, particularly when the fact that counter and rejoinder-affidavits have already been exchanged. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity during the course of disciplinary proceedings. This fact has been denied in the counter-affidavit. A perusal of the order demonstrates that the contention of the petitioner is not correct. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decisions in AIR 1997 SC 1512, 1997 (76) FLR 532 and AIR 1991 SC 471 . A perusal of the aforesaid judgments will demonstrate that these judgments arise out of dispute of disciplinary proceedings against the Government servant who are protected by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India whereas the present petitioner is an employee of the Corporation and there are no analogous provision under the service regulation or any other service rules applicable to the petitioner could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties as are enshrined under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) IN this view of the matter, the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help. ( 6 ) A perusal of the impugned order clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has been given charge-sheet containing the charge and he was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. ( 5 ) IN this view of the matter, the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help. ( 6 ) A perusal of the impugned order clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has been given charge-sheet containing the charge and he was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. The sole grievance raised by the petitioner is that he has not been given full opportunity which fact has been denied in the counter-affidavit in details and full details of the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer are stated in the impugned order is also clear. ( 7 ) IN this view of the matter, two versions are available one by the petitioner and other by the respondents on affidavits and the impugned order clearly demonstrates that the authority has considered the submission submitted by the petitioner after affording him full opportunity and thereafter the order of punishment was passed. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances stated above, apart from the principles that this Court should not interfere with the disputed question of fact in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in my opinion, grievance of the petitioner that he was not afforded full opportunity does not find support either from the impugned order or from the averments made in the counter-affidavit, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. There is no order as to costs. .