JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure 8, i.e. the Enquiry Report as well as Annexure 7, dated 31.7.2001, by which the Disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, issued notice to show cause to the petitioner as to why he should not be awarded major punishment and also the order as contained in Annexure-11 dated 29.8.2002, whereby the Disciplinary authority passed the order imposing punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, an employee of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, was proceeded departmentally for certain charges. The gist of the charges is that the petitioner was Conductor of Bus No. BHT 8060 on 16,4.1984. On that day, the said Bus was checked by a Traffic Inspector under the supervision of a Magistrate near Mariam Toli, while it was returning from Chainpur to Ranchi. On checking it was found that altogether 92 passengers were there in the Bus but only 13 passengers were issued tickets and the rest 79 passengers were without any ticket. The passengers of the Bus stated that though Bus fare had already been realised from them but no ticket was issued. One Baleshwar Singh, an unauthorised Stepinee was found working as Conductor on the instruction of the petitioner. It was reported that though the petitioner was there in the Bus but as soon as the Bus was stopped for checking the petitioner fled away from the said Bus after handing over the papers to the unauthorised Stepinee. 3. In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner stated that his application, submitted to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation earlier, be treated as his show cause. 4. The defence of the petitioner was that he attend his duty as Conductor on 15.4.1984, while going from Ranchi to Chainpur but on return journey, on 16.4.1984, in the early morning itself he fell sick and then he was hospitalised in a local Primary Health Centre at Chainpur itself and he remained there till 17.4.1984, for treatment of his pain in abdomen and, therefore, he was not present at the relevant date and time when the Bus was checked by the Traffic Inspector on 16.4.1984. He had handed over the Counter Booking Challan to the Driver of the Bus, namely, Md. Ismail. 5. He had handed over the Counter Booking Challan to the Driver of the Bus, namely, Md. Ismail. 5. During the departmental proceeding, the statement of the Driver of the BUS was recorded. The Enquiry Officer has discussed the statement of the Driver of the Bus, namely, Md. Ismail, wherein he had stated that the petitioner who was the Conductor of the Bus was very much present in the Bus on 16.1.1984 i.e. on return journey from Chainpur to Ranchi. The petitioner himself had received counter challan from Chainpur and he travelled in the Bus up to Marium Toli but as soon as he stopped the Bus near Mariam Toli for checking the petitioner after handing over the papers to the unauthorised Stepinee Baleshwar Singh, fled away from there and then the Conductor created a defence for himself regarding his illness and hospitalisation to save his skin. The Enquiry Officer after discussing the evidence and materials on record adduced during the Enquiry, held that the charges against the petitioner was established. 6. The Disciplinary authority after receipt of the Enquiry Report examined the matter in detail and then by issue of Annexure 7 dated 31.7.2001, agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that out of 92 passengers in the said Bus, only 13 passengers were issued tickets, whereas the travelling fare had already been realised from the rest of the passengers but they were not issued tickets and further that the Conductor had allowed one unauthorised person, namely, Baleshwar Singh to act as Conductor in the said Bus. The Disciplinary authority thereafter issued notice to show cause to the petitioner, as to why he should not be awarded major punishment for the charges proved against him. 7. From the order as contained in Annexure 11, dated 29.8.2002, passed by the Disciplinary authority, it appears that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to file his show cause but he did not file any show cause and accordingly, the Disciplinary authority imposed punishment against the petitioner for his dismissal from service. 8. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner by challenging the order as contained in Annexure 11, submitted that the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner by challenging the order as contained in Annexure 11, submitted that the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that though the petitioner asked for certain documents by his letter dated 2.9.2002, as contained in Annexure 12 to the writ application, but the said documents asked for by the petitioner was not supplied. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Enquiry was conducted behind his back and prior to submission of the Report as contained in Annexure 8, no notice was given to the petitioner. It was further submitted that in the second show-cause notice, it was not mentioned as to what punishment was going to be imposed against him and therefore, the notice as contained in Annexure 7 was illegal. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in fact the petitioner was found to be under medical treatment on the alleged date of inspection and, therefore, the punishment imposed upon him was bad. 10. Lastly, it was, submitted that the alleged incident was of the year 1994 and the departmental proceeding continued for sufficiently long period and he was imposed punishment of dismissal from service in the year 2002 and that also at the fag end of his service when he was going to retire from service in the year 2003. 11. On the other hand, Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunities to submit his show cause before imposing punishment but he did not choose to submit any show cause and, therefore, the Disciplinary authority rightly passed the order imposing punishment in absence of any show cause. 12. It was further submitted by the respondents that the petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry and cross-examined, the witnesses also. It was further submitted that the departmental proceeding prolonged for sufficient long time, because of the attitude and conduct of the petitioner himself who tried to delay the conclusion of the departmental proceeding. It was further submitted that the petitioner was provided with a copy of the Enquiry Report along with the show, cause notice and there was no requirement of supplying a copy of any document after the submission of the Enquiry Report and at the stage of 2nd show cause notice. 13. It was further submitted that the petitioner was provided with a copy of the Enquiry Report along with the show, cause notice and there was no requirement of supplying a copy of any document after the submission of the Enquiry Report and at the stage of 2nd show cause notice. 13. Lastly it was submitted that the findings on facts arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary authority is not required to be interfered with by this Court as the same are wholly based on materials and evidence on record. 14. It is a settled law that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding and cannot re-appreciate the evidence for itself to correct an error of fact and it cannot interfere with the findings on facts based on evidence and substitute its own independent finding. Only enquiry, the High Court can make under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is as to whether the findings are based upon irrelevant consideration, is perverse, being not based on record and also on the ground that the findings are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have arrived at such a finding. 15. In order to verify the fact as to whether the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend his case properly, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation was asked, to produce the original records of the departmental proceeding and from the materials and documents in the original record, I find that sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner to defend his case and I further found that for prolonging the departmental enquiry for such a long time, the petitioner was also responsible for the same. 16. In the present case, I find that the findings of fact arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is wholly based on the basis of the materials and evidence on record and, therefore, it cannot be said to be perverse in any manner or not based on record and, therefore, in my view, the findings on facts arrived at in the departmental enquiry does not call for any interference by this Court. 17. 17. I do not find any illegality in the order contained in Annexure 11 imposing punishment in view of the serious charges against the petitioner, which was established on facts in course of departmental enquiry. 18. In view of my discussions and findings above, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted and thus is rejected. In the result, there is no merit in the writ application and, as such, is dismissed. No costs.