JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– This writ application at the instance of the petitioner who claims to be the Head Teacher of a Primary School, viz., Dinabandhu Primary School, is directed against a resolution adopted at a meeting of the District School Board, Midnapore, on 30.11.81 resolving that the service of the petitioner has come to an end because of his continued absence for a more than 12 months with effect from 27.12.79 in accordance with Rule 10, clause (g) of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930. The attack has been directed against this order on two grounds primarily. Firstly, that the principles of natural justice have been violated as the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing before the impugned order has been made which very much affected the petitioner and secondly, there has been no compliance with the provisions of Rule 12 of the said Rules inasmuch as no report from the Inspector of Schools has been obtained before the aforesaid resolution was adopted by the Board. 2. This case has got a very chequered career. The petitioner who was appointed as a primary teacher in the Dinabandhu Primary School has been working as the head teacher. Some time in 1969 due to flood the original school building was totally demolished and as such the then Secretary of the School made a report that it was very difficult to hold the School in its original building due to the same being demolished by flood. Thereafter, the authorities concerned on consideration of the said matter and on proper enquiry made an order directing or permitting the School to be held in another place which is commonly known as Ashram Griha and the School was accordingly held there in the shifted site. There was a direction that the Secretary would take steps for construction of the building at the original site and as soon as the same is complete this School would be again shifted back to its original site. In the meantime the petitioner came up before this Court with two applications making complaints that he was not being paid his salaries and he was prevented from joining his duties and incidentally also he challenged the shifting of the site of the School. In the meantime the petitioner came up before this Court with two applications making complaints that he was not being paid his salaries and he was prevented from joining his duties and incidentally also he challenged the shifting of the site of the School. It appears that in Civil Rule No. 6723 (W) of 1979 heard on 19.7.79 by Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. it was held by His Lordship that he was not inclined to entertain any submission of the petitioner, that the shifting of the site of the School was illegal. As regards payment of salary it was held that in view of the order passed by P. K. Banerjee, J. on 22.1.79 in Civil Rule No. 2820 (W) of 1971 the petitioner has been receiving pay as the head teacher. As regards his complaint that he has not been getting his salary since September, 1978 it has been observed that the parties should comply with the order referred to hereinbefore. The Board was further directed that steps should be taken to pay the arrears of salary unless and until any disciplinary proceeding is initiated against the petitioner. It was also directed that the Sub-Inspector of Schools or a staff of the office of the Sub-Inspector of Schools, Nandigram (East) Circle would accompany the petitioner and would indentify the School where he would join his duties as the head teacher. It is evident from the averments made in the petition that pursuant to this order the authorities concerned permitted the petitioner to join on 16.7.79 the Dinabandhu Primary School as head teacher and the petitioner undoubtedly attended the School till some time in December 1979, when it appears from his own letters that he closed down the School building keeping all the records there and since then he did not attend the School for a single day nor did he make any application to the authorities concerned praying for any leave whatsoever. It is also evident that since then till the show-cause notice was served on him by the President, Ad hoc Committee of the District School Board on 18.9.81 under Memo No. 7935 which has been annexed as Annexure E to the affidavit-in-opposition sworn on behalf of the District School Board he has not attended the School nor has he taken any leave from his employer, the District School Board, Midnapore. However, some time on 12.12.80 a letter was issued by the President, Ad hoc Committee, District School Board, annexed as annexure D to the affidavit-in-opposition intimating the assistant teacher of the said School that the School would he shifted to the newly erected School building at its original site, being Plot No. 1945 of Dinabandhupur Mouza. In the meantime the petitioner moved this Court one writ application with a prayer for a direction for payment of all his unpaid salary and also for repair and reconstruction of the School house and also for an order not compelling him to join his duties in the Ashram Griha which is under the control of a private person. Curiously enough he has also made a prayer for recovery of the School records which I have already said, were in the Ashram Griha which was put under lock and key by this petitioner. This application remains pending till today. In the meantime the petitioner has come up with the instant writ application challenging the infirmity and illegality of the impugned order of termination of his service in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules. 3. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed sworn by Shri Nabin Chandra Khan, a lower division assistant of the District School Board, Midnapore. It has been stated in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner though joined in accordance with the order made by this Court on 16.7.79 wilfully and intentionally abstained from signing the attendance register and also wilfully and intentionally refrained from taking charge of the school knowing fully well that he is the head teacher of the School from the assistant teacher. It is also clear and evident that the petitioner though he attended the school till 27.12.79, did not take steps for discharging his duties and responsibilities as enjoined on the head teacher and also he did not take any steps for holding the annual examinations of the students. But on the other hand, it is he who all on a sudden closed the Ashram Griha where the School was being held without any sanction and/or order and/or permission from the authorities concerned on 27.12.79 keeping all the records of the school under lock and key there. But on the other hand, it is he who all on a sudden closed the Ashram Griha where the School was being held without any sanction and/or order and/or permission from the authorities concerned on 27.12.79 keeping all the records of the school under lock and key there. This is clear and evident from the petitioner's own application annexed as Annexure B to the petition which he has made to the Superintendent of Police, Midnapore, where it has been stated that unless the school is shifted to its own building it is impossible for him to run the school. These are all the averments made on behalf of the District School Board. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed reiterating the statements and allegations made in the writ petition and denying the allegations made in the affidavit-in-opposition. 4. Undoubtedly it appears from the petitioner's own application to the Superintendent of Police as I have referred to above which has been annexed as Annexure B to the affidavit-in-opposition sworn on behalf of the District School Board that the petitioner of his own accord without any permission from the authorities concerned closed down the school building and thereby he has tried to baffle the imparting of education to the students of this primary school and it is rather curious that such a petitioner can come to the Writ Court seeking equity who himself does not do equity. It is more astonishing how a prayer can be made on behalf of such a petitioner who does not have the awareness and/or consciousness about the duties and responsibilities of a head teacher of a primary school that he, a head teacher, without doing work for a single day or a single hour will be allowed to have his salaries drawn from the public exchequer and for this he will come to the Writ Court and have a decree or order or direction. This very conduct of the petitioner is not above board and such petitioner cannot have any sympathy from this Equity Court. The well-known principle is "no work, no pay". There cannot be any exception of this principle in the case of the petitioner. 5. Now the next question is about the order of termination. This very conduct of the petitioner is not above board and such petitioner cannot have any sympathy from this Equity Court. The well-known principle is "no work, no pay". There cannot be any exception of this principle in the case of the petitioner. 5. Now the next question is about the order of termination. I have already said that the petitioner of his own accord ceased to attend the school and to discharge his duties and responsibilities as a head teacher of this Dinabandhu Primary School after 27.12.79 till the disciplinary proceeding was initiated some time on 12.12.80. I have already said that he has also not taken any leave from the school. Not only so, he has paralysed the running of a school by putting the school building under lock and key where all the records of the school where kept and in the meantime came to this Court with an averment and prayer that an interim order should be issued directing the respondents to hand over the records and also with an averment that they should be directed to make payment of his salary. I do not understand what sort of conduct is this and what sort of assistance such a petitioner can expect to get from an Equity Court. Does he think that by doing no work and taking recourse to Court he will get all his salaries? I am really sorry to say that a very wrong step has been chosen by the petitioner. Now coming to the order impugned, undoubtedly as appears from Annexure D to the affidavit-in-opposition, the communication dated 18.9.81 which was issued to the petitioner is in effect and in substance a notice to show cause why he should not be deemed to be no longer in service for his continuous absence in the school for more than 12 months in accordance with Rule 10 of the Rules. The petitioner duly received the same and on 21.10.81 he submitted a reply. The funniest part of the reply is that the school building was shifted to a site of an Ashram and as such he does not feel safe to go there and even when the school was shifted to the original site in the reconstructed house in his reply he takes the stand that there cannot be any shifting of the school without the consent of the District Inspector of Schools. There is no whisper anywhere in his long reply to the show-cause notice that the charge that has been alleged against him, viz., his absence from the school since 27.12.79 till the date of the issuance of the notice is without any rhyme or reason and no explanation has been given nor any attempt has been made to refute this charge. Undoubtedly the horizon of principles of natural justice has been widened and it has been repeatedly observed by the Supreme Court that a person who is affected by an order whether administrative or quasi-judicial, should be given an opportunity of hearing. It will not be out of place to mention herein that the principles of natural justice cannot be put in a strait jacket. It varies according to the facts and circumstances of the case and the exigencies of the situation. In this case admittedly there has been a show-cause notice giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and the petitioner submitted his reply to the said notice. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the submission of Mr. Chakraborty that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice is totally devoid of any merit and as such the said contention is not sustainable. Decision cited by Mr. Chakraborty in this connection (1) Ramakanta Barik v. District School Board, Malda, reported in AIR 1969 Cal 397 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the petitioner who was also a teacher of a primary school, was charge-sheeted and he was asked to show cause within three days to which the petitioner prayed for some more time because he became very weak due to hunger strike adopted by him for refusal of the payment of his salary for a certain period. His prayer was rejected and the District School Board without giving him any extension of time immediately terminated his service. In that connection it was rightly observed by D. Basu, J. that the principle of natural justice which is the essence that pervades our constitutional system has not been followed and as such the order cannot be supported. As I have said already in the instant case the petitioner was asked to show cause. He gave his reply and then after considering this the Board has come to a decision. As I have said already in the instant case the petitioner was asked to show cause. He gave his reply and then after considering this the Board has come to a decision. In such circumstances I am unable to hold that the principle of the natural justice has been violated in any manner whatsoever. 6. The next and perhaps the last contention urged with great vehemence by Mr. Chakraborty is about non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules viz., the report of the Inspector of Schools was not called for. I have seen the papers. Petitioner's own admission is that he closed down the school on 27.12.79 keeping the entire school premises under lock and key and he did not ever attend the school for a single day or for a single hour after 27.12.79. The Sub-Inspector of Schools is also aware of this fact and there is no denial that he did not ever attend the school for a single day or for a single hour after 27.12.79. What mere report is necessary? This is an Equity Court and the Equity Court must look not to the form but to the substance of the matter. What is the injustice that the petitioner did suffer? The petitioner knew very well that he did not attend the school after the same was closed by him on 27.12.79 till the impugned notice was issued some time in October, 1981. In these circumstances I am constrained to hold that this submission has got no legs to stand upon and I reject the said submission. 7. Before parting with the case I am compelled to make one observation. It is always expected that the teachers should not make it a point to come to law courts very often without doing their duties and responsibilities enjoined by the Act and the Rules. They should remember their primary duties as teachers that a teacher is to impart instruction to the pupils, to attend the school regularly and to discharge his duties and responsibilities properly. With these words, as I have held already, this application is rejected without any order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated.