The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of prolonged absence from duty, where the employee's intention to abandon service is evident, no enquiry is necessary, and non-observance of principles of natural justice may not vitiate the order if it does not result in grave injustice or prejudice the cause of the delinquent.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13. 3. 2002, (Annexure-II) by which the services of the petitioner had been terminated and order dated 6. 3. 2003 (Annexure-V)by which his appeal against the order dated 13. 3. 2002 has been dismissed.

( 2 ) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 25th June, 2001 initiating an enquiry on the charges of absconding, embezzelement and irregularities in purchase of the wheat. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 30334 of 2001, before this Court, but no interim relief could be granted. As petitioner remained absent from duty for more than 3 months, in view of the provisions of Rule 59-B (3) of U. P. Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called the Rules, 1975), he was liable to be dismissed from service without holding disciplinary proceedings. A notice was served upon him by publication in the local news paper on 9th March, 2002 that he should join the duty by 1lth March, 2002, but the petitioner neither joined the duty nor sent any information. Thus, in exercise of powers under the aforesaid rules his service was terminated vide order dated 13. 3. 2002 (Annexure-II ). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied he filed writ petition before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 17. 9. 2002 and the petitioner was directed to exhaust the remedy of appeal under the provisions of Regulation 60 of the U. P. Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies Centralised service Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter called the Regulation, 1976)

( 3 ) PETITIONER preferred the appeal which has been dismissed vide order dated 6th March, 2003 (Annexure-V ). Hence, this petition.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the Rules 1975 provide for termination of service without holding an enquiry, it was mandatory for the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings and as the petitioner remained ill, the Medical Certificates could have been taken into account by the Authorities.

( 5 ) ON the contrary learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner remained absconding for more than 260 days and this fact remains undisputed and un-denied. Holding an enquiry could have been a futile exercise and the orders impugned do not warrant any interference. The Medical Certificates submitted by the petitioner along with the writ petition had not been the part of the record before the authority concerned nor they are genuine and hence cannot be taken into consideration.

( 6 ) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 7 ) THE principles of natural justice require to be considered in its correct perspective. In fact, the said principles are ingrained in the mind of every-body, thus, known as principles of natural justice and require observance. One of the fundamental principles of natural justice is Audi alterant partem, i. e. , no man should be condemned unheard. In Dr. Bentleys case, i. e. , R. v. University of Cambridge, (1723) 1 Str. 757, the Kings Bench traced the history of principles of natural justice and observed that the first hearing in human history was given in the Garden of eden and even "god himself did not pass sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence.

( 8 ) IN Painter v. Liverpool Oil Gas Light Co. , (1836) 3-A and E 433, it was held that a party is not to suffer in person or in purse without an opportunity of being heard.

( 9 ) EVEN, if there is no provision in the statute about giving of notice, if the order in question adversely affects the rights of an individual, the notice must be given. (Vide East India commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1962 SC 1893 ). The notice must be clear, specific and unambiguous and the charges should not be vague and