IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5872 of 2011 RUDAL RAI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2/ 08/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is the Up Mukhiya, Tikarampur Panchayat, Munger aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2010 of the Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, under Section-18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 unseating him from that post. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order relies upon the comments furnished by the District Magistrate on the cause shown by the petitioner. The same was not made available to the petitioner to meet what may have been stated therein. He has therefore been condemned by taking into consideration evidence behind his back which was in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been singled out alone when in his show cause he has specifically stated that the withdrawal of money and execution of the works was not attributable to him alone. Learned counsel for the State points out from 2 the impugned order that the Mukhiya has also been proceeded against. It is next submitted that in his reply to the show cause notice the petitioner made no specific denial of the allegations, but gave an evasive reply that he was not liable alone. The contention of the petitioner that till the criminal adjudication, the impugned order pre-judges the whole issue, does not appeal to the Court. The standard of proof in the criminal trial shall be entirely different from the present proceedings. The ground of natural justice also does not appeal to the Court. What natural justice may mean shall depend on the given facts of a case. Once the facts are not in dispute, natural justice cannot be insisted upon as an empty formality when it is apparent that even after compliance of the same the conclusion would remain unchanged. The impugned order fairly notices that after institution of the First Information Report against the amount withdrawn Rs.13,79,700/- certain works had been done, but there still remained an outstanding of Rs.6,85,499/- These facts have not been denied in the writ petition. The other charges are a fall out of the criminal prosecution instituted on the aforesaid ground leading to his absconding, affecting public works etc. 3 Once the charges are not denied for what is alleged as misappropriation of public money meant for a public scheme, the Court is satisfied that the present case on its facts does not call for any interference. The writ application stands dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)