JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri R.K. Pandey for the petitioner and Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ petition is directed against the orders dated 5.3.1999 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. State Handloom Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’), respondent No. 3, dismissing the petitioner from service pursuant to a departmental enquiry, and, dated 22.8.1999 passed by the Chairman U.P. State Handloom Corporation rejecting his appeal. 3. The facts, in brief are that U.P. State Handloom Corporation is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 wholly owned by the State of U.P. It is an instrumentality of State Government and is a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was appointed as Depot Manager (Grade-2) vide appointment letter dated 1.6.1980 issued by the respondent No. 3 The service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. (Officers and Staff) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 1981 Rules). On certain allegations, he was dismissed from service without any show cause notice or enquiry vide order dated 16.8.1989 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Aggrieved thereto. the petitioner filed writ petition No. 21735 of 1989 and, while the said writ petition was pending, the parties entered a settlement that the corporation would withdraw the order dated 16.8.1989 and would be at liberty to hold on enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner in the said order dated 16.8.1989. However, in the meantime the petitioner shall be reinstated and would be paid the same pay which he was getting at the time of termination and shall also be allowed to continue with the benefit of seniority etc. With respect to the back wages, the petitioner shall be paid 50% of the wages, 25% shall stand waived off and 25% shall be retained by the management towards security amount of the petitioner. The management also reserved right to hold departmental enquiry which would be completed within 6 months from the date of acceptance of the settlement and in case the petitioner is found innocent, his rest of the amount of 25% wages shall be released but if the charges are proved, the said amount would be adjusted against the irregularities proved and in case the amount of recovery is found more, the balance shall be realized from the petitioner from his other dues and sources. The petitioner agreed to withdraw his writ petition and ultimately the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.3.1993. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated on 28.4.1993 and was directed to join in the office of Regional Marketing Manager of the Corporation at the Head Office where he joined on the same date. He was however not paid wages as per the settlement for which he made representations. In the meantime, the petitioner was also transferred and posted at Regional Office of the corporation at Bhuvneshwar in the State of Orissa vide order dated 21.12.1993. The petitioner challenged the order of transfer in writ petition No. 20114 of 1994, wherein no interim order was passed and ultimately the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy on 28.7.1997. In the meantime, the corporation compelled the petitioner to join at the transferred place but he did not join and submitted application dated 27.1.1994 asking to grant leave but no order was passed by the authorities on the said application. By letter dated 19.8.1994 issued by the Chief Marketing Manager, the petitioner was informed that the corporation has appointed him as enquiry officer to hold disciplinary enquiry in respect to alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner during his posting at Gwalior Show-room of the corporation. The said letter also contained 4 charges requiring him to submit his reply thereto. The petitioner sent a letter dated 3.9.1994 stating that as per the settlement, the enquiry ought to have been concluded within six months and the said period having expired, it would not be appropriate to hold any further enquiry since it is inconsistent with the said settlement. He simultaneously sent a letter to the Chief Marketing Manager, requesting him to seek instructions from respondent No. 3 in the light of the settlement dated 12.2.1993. No decision was taken by the respondent No. 3 and in the meantime the petitioner was required to submit his reply to the charges contained in the letter dated 22.8.1994 which was replied by the petitioner asking the enquiry officer not to sent any letter to the petitioner in view of the settlement dated 12.2.1993. The petitioner also sent a letter dated 21.12.1995 requesting the corporation to cancel his transfer order. The petitioner also sent a letter dated 21.12.1995 requesting the corporation to cancel his transfer order. The enquiry officer concluded enquiry and submitted report on 24.1.1996, which was communicated to the petitioner along with show cause notice dated 7.1.1997 requiring him to show as to why he should not be dismissed from service and also a recovery of Rs. 1,15,290.65 be effected from him. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 12.2.1997 and also sent a letter dated 4.5.1999 stating that the documents relied upon were not supplied to the petitioner and therefore, the entire disciplinary proceeding is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Senior Manager sent a letter dated 24.8.1997 stating that the petitioner was furnished with a already copy of the enquiry report yet he has tried to delay the proceedings by raising demand of various documents. However, in the interest of justice, the documents which were demanded by the petitioner, copies thereof were annexed again and he was required to submit his reply within 21 days. The petitioner thereafter complained that the documents which have been made available are the photo copies and some are neither legible nor they are duly attested true copies and he has doubt on the correctness of some of the documents, therefore, he should be supplied attested certified copies of all the documents and also the minutes of the enquiry proceedings. The respondent No. 3, however, passed order of punishment dated 5.3.1997 whereagainst the petitioner’s appeal before respondent No.3 has been rejected by order dated 24.11.1998. The petitioner filed writ petition No. 76889 of 1999 against the punishment order as well as appellate order dated 24.11.1998. This Court by order dated 25.1.1999 disposed of the writ petition finally setting aside the appellate order since the appeal was rejected only on the ground of limitation and directed the appellate authority to pass a reasoned order after considering his appeal on merits. Consequently, the petitioner was given notice and after hearing him, the appellate authority has rejected his appeal, vide order dated 22.8.1999, impugned in this writ petition, upholding the punishment order. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the entire proceedings have been held ex-parte and in utter violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated in law. 5. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the entire proceedings have been held ex-parte and in utter violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated in law. 5. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit stating that despite repeated opportunities the petitioner did not cooperate in the disciplinary enquiry, neither submitted any reply to the charge-sheet nor attended oral enquiry and also continuously absented from duty having not joined at the place of transfer despite repeated letters and reminders. In these circumstances, the respondents had no option but to proceed ex-parte. Since the charges against the petitioner are very serious and found proved, he has been dismissed from service and an order of recovery of the amount of loss suffered by the Corporation has been issued. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the record. 7. From the pleadings it is evident that the petitioner received the charge-sheet dated 19.8.1994 sent by the enquiry officer but he did not made any attempt even to deny the correctness of the charges at any point of time. On the contrary, he virtually ignored the enquiry officer and referring to settlement dated 12.2.1993 insisted upon the respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry. The attitude and conduct of the petitioner is evident from the letter dated 5.1.1995, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, addressed to the enquiry officer wherein he asked him not to make any further correspondence causing mental tension to him unless various questions which he has raised before the Corporation are answered by the Corporation itself. It is also evident from record that though the petitioner was transferred and relieved but he did not join at transferred place and yet he chose to remain absent and did not participate in the enquiry proceeding despite repeated opportunity. In the circumstances, we do not find any error on the part of the enquiry officer to proceed ex-parte and submit enquiry report on the basis of material produced before it by the department. The enquiry officer found various charges levelled against the petitioner proved. In the circumstances, we do not find any error on the part of the enquiry officer to proceed ex-parte and submit enquiry report on the basis of material produced before it by the department. The enquiry officer found various charges levelled against the petitioner proved. The enquiry report was served, upon the petitioner and thereafter for the first time the petitioner sent letter dated 12.2.1997 wherein he said that the charges levelled against him are not correct but in order to give detailed reply, he should be supplied certain documents, which were detailed in the aforesaid letter copy whereof is Annexure-29 to the writ petition. Admittedly, the said documents were also made available to him vide letter dated 24.10.1997 still the petitioner evade to submit any effective reply on the ground that the documents were not attested and certified though the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not show any requirement of law or principles of natural justice requiring the disciplinary authority to certify the documents supplied to a delinquent employee. He also could not show as to what prejudice, if the documents were not certified, has caused to him. There is not even a pleading to this effect in the entire writ petition. In the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the conduct of the petitioner throughout the proceeding has been of total non-cooperation and avoidance of participation in the departmental enquiry. It is no doubt true that before passing an order of punishment affecting livelihood of an employee, it is incumbent upon the authority to afford adequate opportunity of defence and conduct enquiry strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the rules but it is also true where an employee despite repeated opportunity failed to avail opportunity, it is not open subsequently to him to complain of denial of opportunity. Learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to show any error in the decision making process committed by the respondent in holding the enquiry having effect of denial of opportunity to the petitioner. 8. The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ———