Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india for quashing the order dated 2-12-1995 (Annexure P-8) by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with full back wages. ( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was working on the post of Time Keeper as work-charged employee from the year 1981 in Jawaharlal nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya. He was transferred from Jabalpur to Khandwa by order dated 31-7-1995 issued by the Vice-Chancellor of this University. He was relieved on 1-8-1995. The petitioner did not comply with this order. A show-cause notice was given to him on 19-10-1995 proposing penalty of his removal from service for unauthorised absence from duty and dis-obedience of transfer order. He was removed from service by the impugned order dated 2-12-1995. ( 3. ) THE petitioners case is that on 4-8-1995 he applied for "transfer advance" but it was not given to him. He submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 3-11-1995, a copy of which is Annexure P-7. According to the petitioner he was "an active participant in Union activities" and sat on indefinite fast before the residence of the Vice-Chancellor during the course of an earlier agitation and for this reason he was transferred from Jabalpur to khandwa and it was a malafide act on the part of the Vice-Chancellor. It is also stated that his reply to the show-cause notice was not considered before taking the decision for his removal from service. The petitioner says that he was appointed by the Executive Engineer but he has been removed by the order of the Registrar at the instance of the Vice-Chancellor and the punishment is highly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. By way of rejoinder it has been pleaded that no departmental enquiry was conducted as per M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 which were adopted by the University on 30-11-1979 and therefore the removal order is illegal. It is also submitted that the Notification dated 23-8-1995 (Annexure p-5) did not constitute "regulations" as these were neither approved by the vice- Chancellor nor by the Board of Management and were recommended by the Administrative Council only which is a recommendatory body and the regulation making power does not vest in it. It is also submitted that the Notification dated 23-8-1995 (Annexure p-5) did not constitute "regulations" as these were neither approved by the vice- Chancellor nor by the Board of Management and were recommended by the Administrative Council only which is a recommendatory body and the regulation making power does not vest in it. ( 4. ) THE respondents case is that the transfer order of the petitioner was issued in administrative interest and he wilfully disobeyed it. He did not submit any application for transfer advance and the copy of the letter dated 4-8-1995 produced by the petitioner does not bear the signature of any employee of the University as having acknowledged it. The petitioner flouted the order of transfer and remained absent from duty. This amounted to misconduct. The details of the alleged misconduct were given in the show-cause notice dated 19-10-1995 (Annexure R-l ). According to the respondents the petitioner did not submit any reply to this notice. It is stated that the petitioner submitted a paper to Shri Belapurkar, a tracer in the office of the executive Engineer and then took it back on the pretext that he wanted to make some amendment in it but later he did not submit that paper. The report of the Executive Engineer and the explanation of Shri Belapurkar in this respect is Annexure P-3. The requirements of the regulations applicable to the work charged employees were complied with by serving a detailed show-cause notice and by passing a reasoned order. The Regulations have been framed as required by law. The Vice-Chancellor is the Chairman of the Administrative council and, therefore, his participation in the meeting in which the regulations were finalised amounted to approval by the Vice- Chancellor. The Board of Management has approved the Regulations on 22-3-1997 as per Annexure r-7-A with retrospective effect. The Notification dated 23-8-1995 only incorporates the earlier Notifications dated 7-6-1991 and 22-7-1991 which were applicable to the work charged employees. ( 5. ) THE learned Counsel for both the sides have been heard. First of all it has to be examined what are the rules or regulations which are applicable to the case of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the M. P. Civil services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 have been adopted by the respondent-University but those are applicable to regular employees. First of all it has to be examined what are the rules or regulations which are applicable to the case of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the M. P. Civil services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 have been adopted by the respondent-University but those are applicable to regular employees. Rule 3 (1) (d) of these rules provides that these rules shall not apply to any person for whom special provision is made, in respect of matters covered by these rules by or under any law for the time being in force. Various departments of the Government have framed separate rules for work-charged employees. For example, M. P. Public Works Department Work-charged and Contingency paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1976. Rule 12 of these Rules enumerates various acts and omissions as misconduct and Rule 13 lays down the penalties which may be imposed on an employee. For the penalty of removal from service Rule 14 provides the procedure that the employee should be informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken; the employee should be given an opportunity to explain his position in regard to the allegations made against him and such explanation should be taken into consideration by the Competent Authority. This procedure is consistent with the principles of natural justice but it is not as detailed and comprehensive as provided in Rule 14 of the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1966. The regular employees have been provided greater protection and security of tenure and that is reduced in descending scale for workcharged and contingency paid employees, daily paid, muster roll and casual labour. The protection is in proportion to the nature and character of employment. ( 6. ) THE respondent-University has also framed the Regulations on the model of the P. W. D. Rules, 1976 for work-charged employees. These were initially made in the year 1991 and Notifications in that respect are dated 7-6-1991 and 22-7-1991 (Annexures R-5 and R-6 ). Part B of the Notification dated 7-6-1991 lays down exactly the same procedure for imposition of the penalty of removal from service of work-charged employees as are provided in the P. W. D. Rules mentioned above. These were initially made in the year 1991 and Notifications in that respect are dated 7-6-1991 and 22-7-1991 (Annexures R-5 and R-6 ). Part B of the Notification dated 7-6-1991 lays down exactly the same procedure for imposition of the penalty of removal from service of work-charged employees as are provided in the P. W. D. Rules mentioned above. The two Notifications of the year 1991 were consolidated and some changes were made by the Notification dated 23-8-1995 (Annexure R-7 ). The framing of these Regulations of the year 1995 is challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the ground that these were not approved by the Board of Management and that has been done in the year 1997 only. The plea of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the Vice-Chancellor has been delegated the powers of approving these regulations which are recommended by the Administration Council. There is jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963 and Section 25 of this Act provides for the Board of Management of the University. Section 27 (xxvii) of the Act permits the delegation of power to the Vice-Chancellor. Statute no. 25 provides for Administrative Council of which the Vice-Chancellor is the Chairman. The Administrative Council in its meeting held on 23-2-1995 amended the Regulations as mentioned above and these were notified by the registrar. The approval of the Vice-Chancellor is said to have been accorded as he presided over this meeting of the Administrative Council. Perhaps the approval of the Vice-Chancellor was necessary after the recommendation of the Administrative Council as the framing of the Regulations is a legislative act in exercise of the delegated power. This defect appears to have been cured by taking the approval of the Board of Management on 22-3-1997. However, even if the Regulations of the year 1995 were inchoate when the action was taken against the petitioner, admittedly the Regulations as notified on 7-6-1991 (Annexure R-5) were there and as noticed earlier Part B of those regulations provided the procedure for imposition of the penalty of removal from service. There was no informity in these Regulations. ( 7. ) AS per procedure in the Regulations applicable to the work-charged employees the show-cause notice was given to the petitioner on 19-10-1995 (Annexure R-l ). It contains full details of the allegations and the misconduct. There was no informity in these Regulations. ( 7. ) AS per procedure in the Regulations applicable to the work-charged employees the show-cause notice was given to the petitioner on 19-10-1995 (Annexure R-l ). It contains full details of the allegations and the misconduct. It is stated therein that the petitioner was transferred from jabalpur to Khandwa on 31-7-1995 and he was relieved on 1-8-1995. It is also stated that he did not join at Khandwa and he was absent from his duties and these acts and omissions constitute misconducts and therefore the penalty of his removal from service is proposed. According to the respondents the petitioner did not submit any reply to this notice. On the other hand the petitioners case is that he submitted the reply on 3-11-1995, a copy of which is Annexure P-7. It is necessary to quote the reply given by the petitioner:- ( 8. ) IT is not the case of the petitioner in this reply that he has not been given transfer advance and for that reason he was not in a position to go from Jabalpur to Khandwa. The petitioner does not give any reasonable explanation for not complying with the transfer order and for remaining absent from duty. His case is that he is a member of the Union and therefore, his transfer is illegal and he has represented to the Chief Minister and he has also met him for ordering the cancellation of his transfer. He is not showing any regrets for not obeying the transfer order and for remaining absent on duty. The petitioner is said to have applied for transfer advance by his letter dated 4-8-1995 (Annexure P-4 ). The respondents have denied the receipt of this letter in their office by any official. The petitioner has not disclosed who had received this letter. In case the petitioner had submitted this letter in the office he would have mentioned the same in his reply (Annexure P-7 ). It is conspicuously absent in this reply that the petitioner applied for transfer advance and it was not given to him. From this reply it is clear that the petitioner was not going to Khandwa not because he was not paid transfer advance but because he was a member of the Union and he approached the Chief Minister for cancellation of his transfer. From this reply it is clear that the petitioner was not going to Khandwa not because he was not paid transfer advance but because he was a member of the Union and he approached the Chief Minister for cancellation of his transfer. Therefore, even if it is held that the petitioner had submitted reply to the show-cause notice, there was no explanation for absence from duty and for disobeying the transfer. There was nothing which could be considered by the competent authority. ( 9. ) IT is well settled that transfer is an incident of service. In Gujarat electricity Board Vs. Atmaram, AIR 1989 SC 1433 , the Supreme Court has held that whenever a public servant is transferred, he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer, it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled, the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay of the transfer order, a public servant has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a representation, or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance to the transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant rules as happened in the instant case. The respondent lost his service as he refused to comply with the order of his transfer from one place to the other. The same legal position has been reiterated in numerous subsequent decisions. ( 10. ) THE petitioner did not make any representation against his transfer order. He is not immune from transfer from one place to the other simply because he claims to be a member of the Union. He has to maintain discipline and abide by the orders of his superiors. The petitioner claims that he was an active participant in Union activities and sat on indefinite fast before the residence of the Vice-Chancellor. If he has been transferred for this reason it can not be said to be malafide act on the part of the University authorities. He has to maintain discipline and abide by the orders of his superiors. The petitioner claims that he was an active participant in Union activities and sat on indefinite fast before the residence of the Vice-Chancellor. If he has been transferred for this reason it can not be said to be malafide act on the part of the University authorities. It is their duty to maintain discipline and if any employee behaves in such a manner he has to be firmly dealt with. The right to form Union and association by the employees and ventilation of grievances through such bodies has to be exercised within reasonable restraint and limits. There should be no indiscipline, insubordination or disorderly behaviour. The contents of the reply to the show cause eloquently speak the conduct and attitude of the petitioner who was behaving in such a way as if he is above the Vice-Chancellor and he can flout his orders with impunity by approaching the political personalities. This Court is fully satisfied that the petitioner disobeyed the transfer order and remained absent for a long time without any reasonable cause. This is borne out from incontrovertible facts. The acts of the petitioner constitute misconduct and he really deserved the penalty of removal from service. The penalty can not be said to be shockingly disproportionate. This Court in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not give any relief to such an employee. ( 11. ) EVEN if the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1966 are applied to the case of the petitioner the result would be the same. The show-cause notice (Annexure R-l) served upon the petitioner contained the full details of the charge and imputations of misconduct against him. In his reply he did not dispute disobedience to the transfer order and long absence from duty but came out with a story which has no relevance. No documentary or oral evidence was needed to prove the undisputed facts. The petitioner did not come forward with any valid justification for refusal to obey the transfer order and for remaining absent for a long time. Therefore, to hold a full-fledged departmental enquiry would have been a "useless formality". There was a "fair hearing" and the decision which was taken is on the facts fair and reasonable. The petitioner did not come forward with any valid justification for refusal to obey the transfer order and for remaining absent for a long time. Therefore, to hold a full-fledged departmental enquiry would have been a "useless formality". There was a "fair hearing" and the decision which was taken is on the facts fair and reasonable. Wade in is book on "administrative Law" 7th edition Page 519 writes : "in the application of the concept of fair play there must be real flexibility. There must have been some real prejudice to the complainant. There is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. Again it has been said ; "the so-called rules of natural justice are not engraved on tablets of stone". The Court does not act in vain. Hearing to some extent can be dispensed with where it could only be a useless formality because there was nothing that the person affected could say against the action taken. The Court has discretion to refuse relief in its discretion. The Court has the power to withhold the relief if it thinks fit even though there has been some violation of natural justice. ( 12. ) THE Supreme Court has held in Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution Vs. Educational Appellate tribunal, (1999) 7 SCC 332 : Giving of opportunity is a check and balance concept that no ones right be taken away without giving him opportunity or without enquiry in a given case where allegations and charges are admitted and no possible defence is placed before the authority concerned. What enquiry is to be made when one admits violations. In a case where the facts are almost admitted, the case reveals itself and is apparent on the face of the record, and in spite of opportunity no worthwhile explanation is forthcoming, it would not be a fit case to interfere with the termination order. ( 13. ) IN Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan, AIR 2000 sc 2783 , again the Supreme Court has laid down that there can be certain situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For example where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary. In Ridge Vs. For example where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary. In Ridge Vs. Baldwin, it was held that breach of principles of natural justice was in itself treated as prejudice and that no other de facto prejudice need to be proved. But, since then the rigour of the rule has been relaxed not only in England but also in India. The principle that in addition to breach of natural justice, prejudice must also be proved has been developed by the Supreme Court in several cases. The useless formality theory is an exception. It applies to cases of "admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion" as discussed in S. L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379 . The applicability of this theory would depend upon the facts of a particular case. The "prejudice test" is also clearly discernible from the Constitution bench decision of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 , and that can be applied where the complaint is violation of the principles of natural justice. ( 14. ) IN the present case also, as stated above, the admitted or indisputable facts are that the petitioner did not obey the transfer order and remained absent for a long time. In such a situation there was no need to have a detailed enquiry. The impugned order of termination of services of the petitioner is unassailable. ( 15. ) THE petition is dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed.