Judgment ( 1. ) THE present writ appeal has been preferred under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2006 against the order dated 29. 02. 2008 passed in W. P. No. 5189/1996 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner. ( 2. ) THE facts leading to the present case are that petitioner was employed as Development Officer with the respondents. His services have been terminated by order dated 03. 01. 1991. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal and vide order dated 13. 01. 1992 the appeal submitted by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the appellate authority. ( 3. ) PETITIONER was issued a show cause notice on 31. 05. 88 whereby the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation in respect of certain allegations. The allegations against the petitioner were with respect to misappropriation of funds belonging to the respondent Company. The petitioner submitted reply to the same. ( 4. ) THE show cause notice issued to the petitioner is placed on record as Annexure P-1 dated 31. 5. 88 wherein following allegations were framed against the petitioner:- "i. That, you did not maintain proper control over the cover-notes issued to you from time to time by the branch. The following motor cover-notes 949563-567, 949574, 949579-80, 949583-86, 949590-91 were issued by you in the year 1985, till date you have not provided the branch of any records pertaining to the above motor cover-notes. Thus you were negligent in discharge of your functions. ii) That you collected cash premium from Mr. R. M. Srivastava for covering his vehicle vide policy no. 4/4618 risk commencing from 2. 4. 1985. However, you deposited the premium in cash only on 4. 41985. Thus you misappropriated companys funds temporarily. iii) You collected cash premium of rs. 36/- from Mr. A. K. Mandikar for covering risk of his vehicle vide policy no. 4/5219 risk commencing from 25. 11. 1985 however you deposited the premium only on 28. 11. 1985 vide receipt no. 430330. Thus you misappropriated companys funds temporarily. iv) You issued motor cover-note no. 949598 on 11. 11. 1985 to insured mr. R. K. Shukla for which you collected premium Rs. 304/- in cash. However, you deposited the premium on 14. 11. 1985 vide receipt no. 430031. Thus, you misappropriated companys funds temporarily. 11. 1985 vide receipt no. 430330. Thus you misappropriated companys funds temporarily. iv) You issued motor cover-note no. 949598 on 11. 11. 1985 to insured mr. R. K. Shukla for which you collected premium Rs. 304/- in cash. However, you deposited the premium on 14. 11. 1985 vide receipt no. 430031. Thus, you misappropriated companys funds temporarily. v) You collected cash premium of rs. 86/- on 14. 12. 1985 from mr. K. L. Choudhary for covering his vehicle vide policy no. 4/5298 risk commencing from 14. 12. 1985 vide receipt no. 431247. Thus, you misappropriated companys funds temporarily. vi) You collected a cash premium of rs. 60/- against motor cover-note dated 12. 7. 1985 from Mr. N. K. Kantha for which policy no. 4/4846 was issued risk dated 12. 7. 1985, 11. 7. 1986. However, you deposited cash premium of Rs. 60 only on 15. 7. 1985 vide receipt no. 110026. Thus you misappropriated companys funds temporarily. vii) You collected cash premium of rs. 165/- from Mr. R. K. Srivastava for covering risk of his vehicle vide policy no. 4/4861. However you deposited cash premium of Rs. 165/- only on 23. 7. 1985 vide receipt no. 110177. Thus, misappropriating companys funds temporarily. viii) You issued two motor cover-notes no. 554297 and 554298 against which you have not deposited any premise till date. You have also not furnished the details of these cover-notes to the branch. You have thus embezzled companys funds. " ( 5. ) AFTER receipt of the reply, the respondents conducted the departmental enquiry. In the departmental enquiry the petitioner was found guilty and thereafter the order of dismissal was passed after issuance of show cause notice. ( 6. ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge it was alleged by the present appellant that the departmental enquiry conducted against him was ex parte and there had no sufficient opportunity which was given to the petitioner. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that various notices were issued by the Enquiry Officer by registered post acknowledgment due and also by under Postal Certificate. the Enquiry Officer in his report also justified the ex parte enquiry which was conducted against him. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:- "the inquiry was completed in four sittings on 5. 4. 1990, 16. 04. 1990, 08. 05. 1990 and 18. 06. 1990. Charge sheeted employee (SCE) Mr. Arora was first advised on 19. the Enquiry Officer in his report also justified the ex parte enquiry which was conducted against him. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:- "the inquiry was completed in four sittings on 5. 4. 1990, 16. 04. 1990, 08. 05. 1990 and 18. 06. 1990. Charge sheeted employee (SCE) Mr. Arora was first advised on 19. 3. 1990 by regd. Post as also U. P. C. That preliminary inquiry would be held on 5. 4. 1990. However, CSE failed to appear before me on 5. 4. 1990. He was then advised vide letter dated 5. 4. 1990 (sent under regd. Post and U. P. C.) to appear before me on 16. 4. 1990. He once again failed to appear before me on 16. 4. 1990. I decided to give one more opportunity to him and wrote to him vide letter dated 16. 4. 1990 to appear before me on 8. 5. 1990 else inquiry would be held ex-parte. CSE failed to appear before me on 8. 5. 1990. Letter sent by regd. A/d was returned undelivered with the remarks "addressee not available at home and does not come to collect the letter in spite of leaving message". I therefore, decided to proceed with the inquiry ex-parte on 8. 5. 1990. I however advised CSE of the same vide my letter dated 8. 5. 1990 (sent under regd. Post and UPC) enclosing a copy of the proceedings on 18. 6. 1990. However, the CSE did not appear before me even on 18. 6. 1990 and as such, proceedings were conducted and concluded ex-parte". ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that petitioner changed his house and therefore the notice issued was not to the correct address. On a query made by the Court that whether the appellant at any point of time intimated to his employer about the change of his residential address, the counsel fairly stated that no intimation was ever given by the appellant to the employer about the change of residential address. On a query made by the Court that whether the appellant at any point of time intimated to his employer about the change of his residential address, the counsel fairly stated that no intimation was ever given by the appellant to the employer about the change of residential address. In view of the aforesaid, the question arises, if an employee has failed to intimate to his employer about the change of his residential address then whatever notices issued to an employee on the basis of the address which was given in the service book and if the employee does not appear before the Enquiry Officer then the Enquiry officer is whether justified in proceeding ex parte. ( 8. ) THE learned Single Judge in para 9 of its judgment has taken note of the situation that substitution of the address was not intimated and the present appellant has also not made any efforts about the enquiry proceedings then the enquiry which has been proceeded against the petitioner is proper. ( 9. ) IN this reference with profit, reliance is placed on a division Bench judgment of this Court reported in I. L. R. (2008) M. P. 2771 R. K. Geete Vs. Deputy Managing director and Corporate Development Officer and Others. In the aforesaid judgment, the question with regard to holding of departmental enquiry ex parte has been considered. The Division Bench in para 6 of its order held that when an employee had himself chosen not to participate in the disciplinary proceedings it does not lie in his mouth that the principles of natural justice have been given indecent burial. ( 10. ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant relied upon a judgment passed by the Apex Court in AIR 1998 SC 2722 Union of India Vs. Dinanath Shantaram karekar in which it is held that intimation by itself is not sufficient and actual service is necessary as the delinquent has to submit his reply. ( 11. ) IN the present case also, a finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge that the notices were issued to the present appellant by registered post acknowledgment due but the same were returned undelivered with the remarks "addressee not available at home and does not come to collect the letter inspite of leaving message. " ( 12. ) IN the present case also, a finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge that the notices were issued to the present appellant by registered post acknowledgment due but the same were returned undelivered with the remarks "addressee not available at home and does not come to collect the letter inspite of leaving message. " ( 12. ) IN the present case, employer has taken sufficient steps to issue proper notices to the present appellant. The postal receipt also makes it clear that the remark given in the letter by the postman is correct. Further, it is the admitted position that the change of residential address was never intimated by the present appellant to his employer. ( 13. ) UNDER the circumstance, it cannot be said that the appellant was denied the principles of natural justice and the ex parte enquiry conducted against the appellant was bad in law. ( 14. ) IN view of the aforesaid, we do not find any substance in the writ appeal and the writ appeal as such stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.