M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 11/02/2000 annexure 5 to the writ petition, and for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary, allowances and other consequential benefits with interest to the petitioner. ( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as assistant Mill Engineer in the service of U. P. State Yarn Company Ltd. in the reserved category after a selection. True copy of the appointment order dated 15/01/1990 is annexure 2-A to the writ petition. A perusal of the order dated 15/01/1990 shows that the petitioner was appointed on probation for two years and his service was terminable during or at the end of the original or the extended period of probation without assigning any reason. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was posted in the Banda unit of the Company under the supervision of the Mill Engineer and was assigned the duty to supervise and maintain the machinery work only in the unit, while the building maintenance was being looked after by the mill Engineer himself. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is alleged that during the course of inspection by the respondent No. 2 the Managing Director, on 19/09/1998 water leakage and excess moisture was found in the yarn godown and hence the respondent No. 2 treating the same as negligence and dereliction in duty suspended the petitioner vide order dated 19/09/1998, Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The petitioner alleged that the damage was due to the negligence by the packaging department of the unit, as the same was not packed in polythene bags. True copy of the reply dated 25/09/1998 is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Thereafter an enquiry was held and the impugned order dated 11/02/2000 was passed awarding minor punishment and withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect vide Annexure 5 to the writ petition. By the said order it was also directed that in addition to suspension allowance no other benefit be paid during the suspension period. By the said order the petitioner was also reinstated. By the said order it was also directed that in addition to suspension allowance no other benefit be paid during the suspension period. By the said order the petitioner was also reinstated. ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY by the order dated August 25/31, 2000 the petitioners service was terminated w. e. f. February 10, 2000 on account of the closure of the unit under the provisions of Section 25-O of the Industrial disputes Act: ( 5 ) A counter affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit it is stated that an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 22/12/1999 wherein the charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be established. Consequently the impugned order was passed. ( 6 ) THE finding of guilt is a finding of fact, and hence we cannot interfere in writ jurisdiction. As regards the allegation that opportunity of hearing was not given it has been stated in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that even though there was no necessity of holding full-fledged enquiry since a minor punishment was proposed, yet an enquiry was held giving the petitioner full opportunity. In paragraph 18 it is stated that the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance up to February, 1999 but it could not be paid any further due to totally non- availability of funds due to a severe financial crisis. ( 7 ) THE facts of this case are similar to those in Writ Petition No. 7782 of 2002 R. K. Mishra v. Chairman, U. P. State Yarn Co. Ltd. 2003 All LJ 605 which we have dismissed today. We have held therein that non-payment of subsistence allowance does not necessarily vitiate the enquiry proceedings in every case. In this case also we are of the opinion that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, for non-payment of subsistence allowance. ( 8 ) FOLLOWING the decision in the aforesaid case this petition is also dismissed. No order as to costs. .