Judgment ( 1. ) IN this petition, petitioner is assailing an award (Annexure-S) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal on 19-04-1991. On failure of conciliation, question was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal whether the action of Management of Central Ordnance Depot, Jabalpur in compulsory retiring Shri D. M. Singh, Ex Office Superintendent, Grade II COD, jabalpur w. e. f. 12-10-1983 vide order dated 1-10-1983 and subsequently refusing his leave encashment is justified and if not what relief, workman concerned is entitled to. ( 2. ) THE facts in short giving rise to the petition indicates that petitioner has claimed the LTC while he was in service to undertake the journey from Jabalpur to Madurai and back. Petitioner had applied for advance, journey was to be undertaken in December, 1981. A sum of Rs. 5340/- was withdrawn in favour of himself and 9 family members for proceeding to Madurai and back whereas he submitted an LTC adjustment claim for Rs. 4,572/- on 21st january, 1982 for self and five family members only. Thus there was over withdrawal of LTC advance in favour of 4 family members and failed to refund the excess drawn amount immediately on completion of return journey. He withheld the amount in an unauthorized manner. The excess drawn amount of rs. l,778. 40/had ultimately to be recovered from his pay and allowances. ( 3. ) THE second article of charge was during the above period, he preferred fraudulent LTC claim for self and five family members amounting to rs. 4,572/- for the journey purported to have been undertaken by them to madurai and back by First Class rail accommodation during the period 15 to 25 december, 1981. In support of claim quoted first class ticket Nos. 040 to 045 dated 15th December, 1981 for the onward journey and a combined Ticket No. 115973 for the return journey from Madurai to Jabalpur. When asked to produce the first class reservation tickets, he gave a written statement dated 11-2-1982 that he got the reservation through the travelling conductor of first class both during onward and return journey, the reservation tickets were handed over to the ticket collector at Madurai and Jabalpur along with the tickets. Whereas on verification it has been revealed that though the party and purchased tickets for six adults for Rs. Whereas on verification it has been revealed that though the party and purchased tickets for six adults for Rs. 4,572/- and that those tickets were cancelled through 2 different counters at Jabalpur Railway Station the same date 15-12-1981 itself and collected a net refund of Rs. 4,569/ -. The verification report received from the Railway Authorities reveal that Shri D. M. Singh had submitted a false LTC adjustment claim against LTC advance drawn by him and submitted a false statement regarding the reservation tickets with motive of defrauding public fund to the tune of Rs. 4,572/ -. ( 4. ) DEPARTMENTAL enquiry was held against Shri D. M. Singh. He was compulsorily retired w. e. f. 13-10-1983, leave encashment was also refused. He was kept under suspension from 27-8-1982 by Bg. K. R. Nath, COD. Petitioner assailed the order on the ground that false and frivolous allegations were levelled against him. Decision has been taken in mechanical manner. Workman has suffered hardship due to suspension, documents were not supplied to him. Enquiry is liable to be quashed, which was closed on 18-05-1983. Even thereafter, documents were not supplied to the workman, charges were baseless, findings are perverse, not in accordance with law and principles of natural justice. Full opportunity was not given to the workman. Order of compulsory retirement which was passed has been upheld by the CGIT. The CGIT has gone through the entire file pertaining to the departmental enquiry. ( 5. ) SHRI Rajneesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of compulsory retirement, the award passed by the CGIT mainly on the ground that documents were not supplied and opportunity of defense was not afforded. He has further submitted that show cause notice was not issued before passing of the final order, hence order of compulsory retirement deserves to be set aside. ( 6. ) SHRI P. S. Nair, Sr. Counsel with Shri Naveen Dubey, appearing for the Employer has submitted that the enquiry has been held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Entire departmental enquiry file has been looked into by the CGIT. There was sufficient material to show that petitioner has claimed fraudulent LTC. Both the tickets were cancelled on the date on which they were issued at Jabalpur itself, which fact has been certified by the station Superintendent Shri Panchamal. Entire departmental enquiry file has been looked into by the CGIT. There was sufficient material to show that petitioner has claimed fraudulent LTC. Both the tickets were cancelled on the date on which they were issued at Jabalpur itself, which fact has been certified by the station Superintendent Shri Panchamal. The question that show cause notice was not given, has not been raised at any stage earlier, hence it cannot be raised for the first time in this writ petition. ( 7. ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it is clear that finding has been rightly recorded in the course of departmental enquiry that petitioner has not undertaken the journey from Jabalpur to Madurai and back, fact is writ large. Petitioner did not produce the tickets. Tickets could not be produced for the reason that they were cancelled on the same date on which date they were issued. There is absolutely nothing to doubt the certificate which has been issued by the Railway Authorities that tickets were cancelled on the same date. Journey was not undertaken, as the tickets on the basis of which petitioner claim that journey was undertaken were cancelled on the date they were issued at Jabalpur. Obviously the finding which has been recorded by the departmental Authority is just and proper. This Court cannot sit over the finding as Court of appeal finding which has been recorded is reasonable inference. File has also been looked into by the CGIT. ( 8. ) QUESTION of principles of natural justice cannot be fitted in the straight jacket formula in view of the fact and circumstance of each case, it is to be seen whether proper opportunity was given or not, petitioner was questioned about the misconduct, which he had committed. Enquiry was held. Entire enquiry order sheets goes to show that due opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner, obviously he had no defense. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that enquiry was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Question of issuance of show cause notice has not been raised earlier at any stage by the petitioner. Order of compulsory retirement was passed in the year 1983. Petitioner has been dealt with leniently by the respondents. Petitioner has obtained pension for the period he has served. Punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate. ( 9. Question of issuance of show cause notice has not been raised earlier at any stage by the petitioner. Order of compulsory retirement was passed in the year 1983. Petitioner has been dealt with leniently by the respondents. Petitioner has obtained pension for the period he has served. Punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate. ( 9. ) I find no ground to make interference in this writ petition, same is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred. Misc. Petition dismissed.