IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16565 of 2009 1. SHASHILENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE RAJESHWAR PRASAD SINGH R/O MOHALLA- GOSAI TOLA, P.S.- PATLIPUTRA, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PATNA 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DHANARUA BLOCK, DISTT.- PATNA ----------- 2. 18.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 21.12.2007 imposing ‘stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect’ and ‘censure’ in a departmental proceeding. It is his case that for unavoidable reasons he had to proceed on leave for which he gave due intimation. Because the reasons persisted he gave an application for extension of leave also and no sooner he was in a position to join, he resumed duty. Departmental proceedings were started in which no opportunity was given to defend which was against the principles of natural justice. He filed his reply before the Additional District Magistrate (Establishment), Patna on 12.9.2007 in response to a notice dated 10.8.2007, whereafter he was given no further intimation. The respondents have filed counter affidavit. Annexure-A to the same is the communication dated 12.9.2007 issued to him, by the Conducting Officer in the departmental proceedings. The reply of the petitioner is annexed thereto acknowledging that he proceeded on leave in anticipation of approval. Annexure-C is the enquiry report which demonstrates that three charges were framed against him. The inquiry report adequately considers the cause shown by him on each charge. From the enquiry report it is manifest that the petitioner does not deny that he proceeded on leave merely after giving an 2 application for leave in anticipation of approval. It is not in controversy that his leave was not sanctioned before he went on leave and finally rejected on 30.1.2008. Once this factual position is accepted by the petitioner and his explanation for unauthorized absence has not been considered acceptable by the authorities, it shall not be the jurisdiction of this Court to substitute its views for that of the administrative authority. An application for leave does not tantamount to sanction of leave unless there be a separate order granting the same even post facto. In the facts of the case when the petitioner accepts that he proceeded on leave without sanction and his explanation for unauthorized absence has been considered unacceptable by the authorities, natural justice loses its force. The application of the principles of natural justice depends upon the facts of each case. Where the charge is not denied any alleged procedural illegality shall make no difference and the absence of which cannot be stated to have caused prejudice to the petitioner, the Courts have refrained from setting aside the orders on technicality when they are satisfied that no prejudice has been caused or is shown to have been caused by non-compliance of the same and no different finding could be arrived at after compliance of procedures as alleged. This Court finds it difficult to interfere with the impugned order for the aforesaid reasons. The application is dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.) 3