JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.12.2018, whereby his contractual engagement as Computer Operator (Man with Machine) has been brought to an end. 2. The precise facts are that the petitioner was engaged by the respondent on a contract basis on 11.01.2010. 3. During his engagement, an amount of Rs. 44,878/- got deposited in his account on various dates (21.04.2015, 25.04.2016, 01.09.2016 & 08.12.2016). 4. Later, on complaint by concerned person, an inquiry report dated 12.11.2018 came to be furnished by the competent authority in this regard. 5. In pursuance of the enquiry report, a notice dated 27.11.2018 was issued to the petitioner, as to why his engagement be not terminated alleging that he has committed fraud and wrongfully credited the amount in his account. 6. In response to the notice aforesaid, petitioner submitted his reply, inter alia, stating that he was not even aware of credit of such amount in his account and upon realising that the amount aforesaid has been credited in his account, he has returned the amount to the concerned person namely, Narendra Kumar S/o Sohal Lal. 7. Being dissatisifed with the reply filed by the petitioner, the competent authority dispensed with petitioner s engagement, inter alia, observing that the petitioner has carried out cutting and manipulation in the muster roll and has illegally devoured a sum of Rs. 44,878/-. 8. Learned counsel at the outset argued that the impugned order dated 03.12.2018 has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However upon Court s confrontation, it was submitted that though a notice dated 27.11.2018 was issued to the petitioner but the time allowed was only three days and thus, the order impugned suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order aforesaid argued that the amount has been credited in petitioner s account, without petitioner s knowledge. He submitted that such error has happened because of the fact that the concerned person namely, Narendra Kumar S/o Sohal Lal entitled to such amount, incidentally share the same name as that of the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order aforesaid argued that the amount has been credited in petitioner s account, without petitioner s knowledge. He submitted that such error has happened because of the fact that the concerned person namely, Narendra Kumar S/o Sohal Lal entitled to such amount, incidentally share the same name as that of the petitioner. 10. It was asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner had paid the amount aforesaid to concerned Narendra Kumar on 15.12.2016, no action, much less the action of dispensing with the petitioner s engagement should have been taken by the respondents. 11. In considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner, who was working as a Computer Operator (Man with Machine), having committed cheating & forgery; a case being pending against him, cannot claim any right to continue. This Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner, more particularly because petitioner s engagement was of contractual nature. 12. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 13. Petitioner will be free to avail appropriate remedies available to him under law. 14. Stay application also stands disposed of.