JUDGMENT: R.K. Merathia, J. -Heard the parties at length. 2. This appeal has been field against the judgment dated 11.10.2007 passed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal (JET for short) in Case No. 27/2007 (JET) dismissing the said case filed by the appellant for quashing his dismissal order dated 30.6.2007 passed by respondents-School. 3. Mr. Manish Kumar, appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned order dated 30.6.2007 passed by the respondents-School on the ground that there has been violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the said order of dismissal of the appellant should have been set aside by JET. He further submitted that the responders had made up their mind to dismiss the appellant and therefore the disciplinary proceeding was merely a formality. 4. Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, supported the impugned order and submitted that there has been no violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the appellant did not avail the opportunity given to him and therefore, he cannot complain violation of natural justice. He further submitted that the charges of defalcation of huge amount by the appellant were apparent from the records against which the appellant took peculiar and. untenable stand. 5. It appears that a show cause/suspension notice dated 1.5.2007 was issued and received by the appellant on the date of it's issue as he has not said any other date about it's receipt. The appellant was to file show cause by 8.5.2007 but he gave a letter on 1.6.2007 saying that the charge-sheet was vague and therefore the details may be supplied so that he could give proper reply. A letter dated 8.6.2008 was issued to the appellant giving details of amounts defalcated by him to the tune of Rs. 3,74,000/- and Rs. 2,22,253/- and saying that the appellant was found prima facie guilty of misconduct in terms of rules v and xiv of the Service Rules. He was further informed that a departmental enquiry was initiated in which he should appear at 11, A.M. on 14.6.2007 before enquiry officer. It was further said that in compliance of principles of natural justice, the appellant was being given full opportunity of adducing evidence, etc. The appellant refused to receive the said notice when it was served on him at 11 A.M. on 8.6.2007. According to the appellant, the said letter was received by him on 12.6.2007. It was further said that in compliance of principles of natural justice, the appellant was being given full opportunity of adducing evidence, etc. The appellant refused to receive the said notice when it was served on him at 11 A.M. on 8.6.2007. According to the appellant, the said letter was received by him on 12.6.2007. Even then he did not attend the inquiry on 14.6.2007. In these circumstances, the enquiry officer had no alternative than to hold and conclude the enquiry ex parte on 14.6.2007. The enquiry officer held that the appellant was found guilty of misconduct of having defalcated the huge amount to the tune of Rs. 5,34,520/-. Alongwith a copy of the enquiry report, the second show cause notice dated 21.6.2007 was served on the appellant on 22.6.2007 to which the appellant replied on 25.6.2007. By letter/order dated 30.6.2007 after considering the second show cause, the appellant was terminated from his service w.e.f. 1.7.2007 and was directed to vacate the official residence. It appears that a criminal case has also been instituted against the appellant. 6. The appellant moved JET against the said order of dismissal. After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, JET held that there was no valid legal ground to interfere with the dismissal order passed against the appellant and accordingly dismissed the case filed the appellant. It was, inter alia, held that the main ground taken by the appellant was that he had no knowledge of the departmental proceeding and therefore he did not appear before the enquiry officer, but it was contradictory to his own documents. 7. I do not find any reason to differ with the finding recorded in the impugned order/judgment. The appellant avoided to appear before the enquiry officer though admittedly, he received the notice prior to the date fixed in the enquiry. If he had anything to say he could appear on the date fixed. According to the appellant, he had filed a representation on 20.6.2007 (i.e. after the enquiry was concluded), asking for certain documents, and examining witnesses but the respondents have disputed receipt of such representation. 8. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the appellant cannot complain that principles of natural justice were violated. According to the appellant, he had filed a representation on 20.6.2007 (i.e. after the enquiry was concluded), asking for certain documents, and examining witnesses but the respondents have disputed receipt of such representation. 8. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the appellant cannot complain that principles of natural justice were violated. Only because in the show cause notice it was indicated that the appellant had committed misconduct, it cannot be said that the management had made up its mind to dismiss the appellant from services before completion of enquiry. It is settled position that the concept of natural justice cannot be put into straitjacket. The appellant had reasonable opportunity of presenting his case. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. However, no costs.