IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12076 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Jagdish Kant Choudhary S/O Late Radha Kant Choudhary R/O Vill. & P.O.- Koilakh, P.S.- Raj Nagar, Distt.- Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate Cum District Returning Officer Supaul 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer Cum Returning Officer Birpur (Supaul) 4. The Chief Engineer Department Of Water Resources, Birpur (Supaul) 5. The Superintending Engineer, Baraj Cirlce, Birpur (Supaul) 6. The Executive Engineer, Head Works Division Birpur (Supaul) 7. The Executive Engineer Western Embankment Division, Nirmali, Darbhanga 8. The Executive Engineer, Western Embankment Division, Kunauli At Birpur 9. The Sub-Divisional Officer Baraj Sub-Division, Head-Quarter At Bhimnagar (Supaul) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Aag4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 2 24-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the enquiry report dated 4.11. 2009, the subsequent orders dated 24.1.2010 and 8.5.2010 which denies him salary for the period 24.10.2005 to 1.2.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after he was placed under suspension for absence, the petitioner submitted his explanation, sought an apology which came to be recommended in his favour. The enquiry held by the respondents did not associate the petitioner and he has been Patna High Court CWJC No.12076 of 2010 (2) dt.24-11-2011 2 denied the opportunity to defend himself. It is next submitted that the petitioner had been deputed on the election duty. There was no jurisdiction in the Water Resources Department to pass the aforesaid orders without the approval of the Election Commission. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the writ application and submitted that unauthorized absence is no more in dispute and the respondents have therefore rightly granted him leave without salary for that period so as to maintain the continuity of service otherwise. The allegations as revealed are that the petitioner refused to receive the appointment letter dated 24.10.2005 deputing him as the second electoral officer opposing his deployment for election duty contrary to the guidelines of the Election Commission. On 27.10.2005 the petitioner submitted in writing to the Chief Engineer seeking apology for his conduct willing to participate in elections contending that his wife was unwell. There is no denial in his representation that he had submitted a protest letter as mentioned in the order dated 24.10.2005. If the petitioner was already present on duty on the date in question, surely, he would have mentioned it in his representation of apology submitted barely three days later rather than trying to demonstrate now that he was in fact present on duty as an afterthought. Patna High Court CWJC No.12076 of 2010 (2) dt.24-11-2011 3 The fact that the enquiry did not associate him is hardly relevant. Natural justice has its meaning in context of the facts. The law stands well settled that if the allegations/charges are not denied, not only is no further enquiry into the matter required, but any violation of procedures allegedly of natural justice has no relevance. In (2007) 13 SCC 352 (Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions v. Pindiga Sridhar) the defence of procedural non-compliance and prejudice was rejected holding:- “7…….. In such admitted facts, there was no necessity of issuing show-cause notice to him. The view of the High Court that termination suffers from the non-observance of the principles of natural justice is, therefore, clearly erroneous. In our view, in the given facts of this case, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the respondent. The respondent could not have improved his case even if a show-cause notice was issued to him.” The fact of unauthorized absence not having been denied, the Court is not persuaded to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant relief on technicalities of jurisdiction when it is satisfied that substantially the petitioner is entitled to no relief. The Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)