Order This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.11.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6977/2007* by which the learned Single Judge had been pleased to' dismiss the writ petition' on the ground that it was devoid of merit. 2. It appears that the petitioner/appellant" herein had filed: the writ petition challenging the order of his dismissal which had been passed by way of punishment after an enquiry was held against him in which he duly' participated. The enquiry was conducted after issuance of a charge-sheet to the appellant wherein it was alleged that while was working as an Assistant In the office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, he arranged to lodge and raise a 'false death claim liability in the books of the Corporation on the life of one Om Prakash Mondal who was still alive and by doing so he assisted in realizing the death claim for a sum of Rs. 1,11,260/- on behalf of Smt. Draupadi Devi in connivance with another lady Smt. Munna Devi. 3. In course of enquiry, it could be noticed, that the appellant was instrumental in getting an S.B. Account opened and facilitated withdrawal of Rs. 50,000/- out of Rs. 1,11,260/- but on detection, he managed to deposit Rs. 50,000/- only in the name of Draupadi Devi in the said Account. It was on the basis of this allegation that the appellant was held guilty of the charge and 'consequently, punishment was imposed on him removing him from service as he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to his duty and thus, violated the Regulations 21, 24 read with Regulation 39(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff)'Regulations, 1960. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge only on the ground that certain documents were not supplied to him due to which the enquiry was vitiated and the finding's recorded' therein ought not to, have been accepted as a conclusive proof. 5. This submission was strongly refuted by the counsel for the Respondent L.I.C. who submitted that the appellant had been furnished with all the documents relied upon by the enquiry officer and at no stage of the enquiry, he had taken the plea, that any document sought by him had not been supplied to him. 5. This submission was strongly refuted by the counsel for the Respondent L.I.C. who submitted that the appellant had been furnished with all the documents relied upon by the enquiry officer and at no stage of the enquiry, he had taken the plea, that any document sought by him had not been supplied to him. Counse1 (or the respondent further explained that the appellant in his show cause notice' himself admitted, at the relevant stage that all the documents had been supplied to him and thus, this plea which has now been raised is without any factual basis. 6: Having considered the submission and counter submission of the counsel for the contesting parties, we find no merit in this appeal for if the appellant was aggrieved of non-supply of documents to him which precluded him from disproving the charges levelled against him, it was his duty to raise this objection at the threshold i.e. immediately after initiation of the enquiry or at least, before conclusion of the enquiry. The delinquent appellant ought to have realized that the plea in regard to non-supply of the documents cannot be allowed to be raised merely as a ruse to get over the order of punishment and the said plea has to be raised in a bona fide manner and in order to test the bona fide of this plea, the stage at which this plea is taken, has an important bearing on the whole proceeding. If the petitioner/appellant herein genuinely had a reason to raise this objection, it was expected of him to approach any authority including this Court by raising the plea that the important documents having a serious bearing on his defence ca3e has not been supplied to him. But, if this plea had not been taken at the appropriate stage and more so before conclusion of the enquiry, he cannot be permitted to raise this plea after conclusion of the enquiry and after imposition of punishment especially in a circumstance when he duly participated in the enquiry. However, this plea raised on behalf of the appellant that he had been seri04sly prejudiced on account of non-supply of documents, cannot be accepted as a bona fide plea so as to entertain the same. 7. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.