J.P. Singh, J. 1. The respondent, a Constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Police, was removed from service by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar, with effect from 28.02.2006, for unauthorized absence from duty. 2. Appeal against the order having failed, she approached this Court by Writ Petition SWP No. 1179/2009. 3. The State-respondents did not file their Response to the Writ Petition. A learned Single Judge of this Court, therefore, set aside orders dated 24.06.2008 & 11.11.2008 of the Senior Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Srinagar-Kashmir, respectively, directing respondent's re-instatement forthwith, with no entitlement to salary for the period of absence, finding that the dismissal was illegal, in the absence of any enquiry into the Misconduct. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment dated May 20, 2010 of the learned Single Judge, the State of Jammu and Kashmir has filed this Letters Patent Appeal moving additional Motion for Condonation of 51 days' delay in filing the Appeal. 5. During the course of consideration of the matter, the respondent's learned counsel offered respondent's `No Objection' to the Condonation of delay, which even otherwise, we find has been sufficiently explained. 6. Accordingly, condoning the delay in filing the Appeal, we heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the Appeal. 7. On being asked as to whether the State-appellants had held any enquiry against the respondent before terminating her service, the appellants' learned counsel fairly conceded that no such enquiry was held against the respondent. He, however, submitted that in case the dismissal of the respondent were to be set aside, the appellants be allowed liberty to proceed against her in accordance with the law for her Misconduct. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that having failed to file response to the Writ Petition and held no enquiry into the alleged Misconduct of the respondent, liberty could not be allowed to the appellants because such a course would amount to unnecessary harassment of the respondent. 9. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the Judgment impugned in the Appeal. 10. The respondent's dismissal from service, without holding requisite enquiry into her Misconduct, as required by rules governing the service, cannot be justified, for such a course additionally violates the principles of Natural Justice. The view taken by the learned Single Judge, in this regard, does not, therefore, warrant interference. 11. 10. The respondent's dismissal from service, without holding requisite enquiry into her Misconduct, as required by rules governing the service, cannot be justified, for such a course additionally violates the principles of Natural Justice. The view taken by the learned Single Judge, in this regard, does not, therefore, warrant interference. 11. We, however, see no justification to refuse liberty to the appellants to proceed against the respondent afresh for her Misconduct after following the procedure laid-down in the rules therefor, governing the Service, for invalidity of the punishment for not following the rules, would not deprive the employer of his prerogative to proceed against the delinquent employee after following the rules. 12. Accordingly, upholding that portion of the Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellants' orders dated 24.06.2008 & 11.11.2008 have been set aside and the respondent directed to be re-instated into service forthwith, we permit the State-appellants to proceed against the respondent for her Misconduct in accordance with law. Her entitlement or otherwise to salary for the period of absence from duty shall be determined by the appellants in accordance with the rules, depending on the result of the enquiry. 13. This Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of on above terms.