IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.: 7984 of 2008. Decided on: 12.5.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Surinder Singh … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3. : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. ______________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was posted as Trained Graduate Teacher (Non- Medical) in Government High School, Namgian, District Kinnaur, H.P. He submitted an application for casual leave for four days to the Headmaster of the School. He resumed his duties on 1.8.2001. The Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur visited Namgia Panchayat on 28.7.2001. It was brought to his notice by the Members of the Gram Panchayat that all the Teachers remain absent unauthorizedly on one pretext or the other. He visited the Government High School, Namgia along with Additional District Magistrate, Pooh. The attendance register was checked and it was found that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from the school 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 from 16.7.2001. The Headmaster could only produce the application in which the petitioner had asked for four days casual leave. It was not entered in the casual leave register. In these circumstances, the period of unauthorized absence with effect from 16.7.2001 to 31.7.2001 was ordered to be treated as dies non. This period was directed not to be counted for annual increment, leave encashment and pensionary benefits. This period was directed not to be construed as break in service of the petitioner. Ms. Nidhi Sharma vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma has strenuously argued that no notice was issued to the petitioner before the issuance of Annexure A-4 dated 1.8.2001. She then contended that the Deputy Commissioner has come to wrong conclusion that the petitioner was on unauthorized absence with effect from 16.7.2001 to 31.7.2001. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the issuance of order dated 1.8.2001. He then contended that there is tendency of the teachers to remain unauthorizedly absent in remote areas of the State and this practice is required to be curbed. I have heard the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The petitioner while working as Trained Graduate Teacher in Government High School, Namgia has submitted an application for casual leave. The copy of the application is marked as Annexure R-1. It is mentioned in the application that he was proceeding towards home. He has sought casual leave for four days. In application, he has not mentioned any date(s) of the casual leave 3 which he wanted to avail. The same was sanctioned by the Headmaster. However, the leave was not entered in the casual leave register. Ms. Nidhi Sharma has further argued that the petitioner had fallen sick the day he reached the native place and remained under the treatment from a Medical Practitioner at Nadaun. She has referred to Annexure A-1. Thereafter, the petitioner was advised medical rest by the Doctor of the Community Health Centre from 25.7.2001 to 30.7.2001. In this certificate, no date is mentioned by the Doctor. The column is blank. The petitioner had resumed his duties on 1.8.2001. He submitted an application for earned leave. It was sanctioned by the Headmaster. The Headmaster could not sanction the earned leave on the basis of certificate issued by a private Medical Practitioner on 25.7.2001 and the medical certificate Annexure A-2 which bears no date. The petitioner had not submitted any application for extension of leave. He should have sought extension of leave in case he was sick. Normally, he was required to get the certificate from Government Hospital instead of private Medical Practitioner at Nadaun. It was only on the basis of persistent complaints made by the Members of the Gram Panchayat regarding indiscipline in the school that led the Deputy Commissioner to visit the school along with Additional District Magistrate. It has come in the reply that the Deputy Commissioner has marked the petitioner absent on 28.7.2001 and despite that the Headmaster has sanctioned earned leave ex-post- facto. The Court can take judicial note of the fact that there is absenteeism prevailing in the schools in interior parts of the State. 4 The Teachers are supposed to be present in the schools and in case they have to proceed on leave, necessary procedure is liable to be followed. They cannot proceed on leave in an irresponsible manner and thereafter, try to cover up by furnishing the medical certificates. In view of the facts mentioned hereinabove, it was not necessary for the respondents to issue any show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner, in fact, has no explanation. The principles of natural justice cannot be put in any straitjacket. These rules should be applied in a flexible manner. Where the facts speak for themselves, it may not be necessary to rigidly follow the principles of natural justice. The issuance of notice to the petitioner could be a mere formality. In the present case, on the admitted and indisputable facts only one view is possible that the petitioner has absented himself unauthorizedly. In that event, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner though notice has not been issued to him. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 12, 2009. (cr)