JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, A.C.J. (Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought following relief:- i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19th May, 2010 (Annexure No.8) passed by respondent no.1. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6.6.1995 (Annexure No.5). iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. v) Award cost of the petition. 2. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the writ petition are, that the petitioner was appointed as a Salesman in the year 1983 in the U.P. State Corporation and was posted in Janta Store, Joshimath, District Chamoli. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Karnprayag and then to Pithoragarh. While the petitioner was serving in Pithoragarh, he was placed under suspension on 4.10.1991 by the respondent no.2 on the charges of embezzlement of a sum of ‘1,30,596.40/- which is said to have been committed in the year 1986-87. The District Manager, Haldwani was appointed as enquiry officer in the matter, who issued a charge sheet dated 7.10.1991 to the petitioner alleging therein that according to audit party while carrying out the audit of Janta Store, Joshimath in the year 1991, pertaining to the year 1986-87, there was an embezzlement of ‘1,30,596,40/- and the petitioner was found responsible for embezzlement and financial irregularities in performing duties as Salesman in Janta Store, Joshimath, Chamoli. The petitioner contends that after receiving the charge sheet he submitted his reply dated 24.10.1991 wherein he denied the charges and requested the enquiry officer for providing him the copies of the relevant documents and for making an audit in his presence but neither of his request was accepted nor he was given any opportunity for personal hearing despite his several requests. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 7.10.1994 holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled against him. On the basis of said enquiry report, show cause notice dated 5.5.1995 was issued to the petitioner asking as to why the services of the petitioner be not dismissed. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 7.10.1994 holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled against him. On the basis of said enquiry report, show cause notice dated 5.5.1995 was issued to the petitioner asking as to why the services of the petitioner be not dismissed. The petitioner received this show cause notice on 20.5.1995 and submitted his reply on 30.5.1995. The disciplinary authority, on the basis of enquiry report, dismissed the petitioner from services. The petitioner challenged the said dismissal order dated 6.6.1995 by filing a representation before the respondent no.2 but since his representation remained pending consideration, he filed a Writ Petition No.25025 of 1995 before Allahabad High Court which was subsequently transferred to this High Court after creation of the State of Uttarakhand. In the said petition, this Court passed an order directing the petitioner to seek alternative remedy by approaching State Public Service Tribunal. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun bearing no.25/2009. The claim petition was contested by filing written statement on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 and stating therein that the petitioner was fully afforded opportunity of hearing at all stages and was provided relevant documents as desired by the petitioner. It was also alleged that the petitioner did not reply to the charge sheet knowingly and intentionally. Even notice was published by the enquiry officer through newspaper whereby petitioner was asked to participate in the enquiry and submit his reply. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the enquiry report as well as the order of disciplinary authority, learned Tribunal, vide its judgment and order dated 19.05.2010, dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Inspite of time being granted, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 4. Now, in the absence of counter affidavit, this Court has to see whether the order of learned Tribunal is justified or not and whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the order impugned. 6. 4. Now, in the absence of counter affidavit, this Court has to see whether the order of learned Tribunal is justified or not and whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the order impugned. 6. Before the learned Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the respondent Corporation that departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of audit report by which petitioner was found responsible for various financial irregularities and embezzlement of ‘1,30,596.40/-. The petitioner was provided ample opportunities to reply and adduce evidence in his support. However, he never submitted his reply before the Enquiry Officer. Moreover, the petitioner himself admitted his guilt by his letter dated 31.3.1998 addressed to the Managing Director, Essential Commodities Corporation, Lucknow, wherein the petitioner has mentioned that for the financial year 1986-87, he has been charged for recovery of Rs.1,30,596.40/- and he has already deposited Rs.21,000/- and balance could be deducted from his dues and salary and prayed for the reinstatement in service. 7. Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has also submitted his reply wherein he admitted charge no.1 for shortage of Rs.1980.40/- and charge no.3 for shortage of Rs.451.93/- and for remaining charges, has asked for fresh audit for the department in presence of petitioner, but there is not a word regarding non-supplying of Audit Report or any request for other document/record. However, Audit Report was again made available to the petitioner by letter no.1051 dated 28.1.1992 and asked for his reply and sufficient opportunities were afforded to petitioner by the enquiry officer to inspect the record like Stock Book, Account Book or any other document and notice was published in newspaper to ensure participation of petitioner in enquiry and submit his reply but petitioner failed to respond to the charge sheet. On the contrary, admission of guilt is proved by petitioner’s own letter dated 31.3.1998 addressed to Managing Director. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not accepted this argument of the petitioner that adequate opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner or proper procedure was not followed. On the contrary, admission of guilt is proved by petitioner’s own letter dated 31.3.1998 addressed to Managing Director. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not accepted this argument of the petitioner that adequate opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner or proper procedure was not followed. The learned Tribunal after having heard the parties has not interfered in the order of punishing authority on the ground that the punishing authority after receiving enquiry report had again provided an opportunity to the petitioner of his defence by issuing show cause notice. But the petitioner again intentionally did not respond on time. The punishing authority after considering all facts of enquiry and documentary evidence of Audit Report and admission of guilt by petitioner has passed very elaborate and speaking order by which the services of the petitioner were dismissed. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the orders impugned, we find that the petitioner has admitted his guilt and has intentionally avoided the disciplinary proceedings and did not submit his reply on time. The Court is of the opinion that the charges, so proved, are based on findings of fact, which cannot be interfered in a writ jurisdiction. 9. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.