JUDGMENT SHIVAJI PANDEY, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. In this case, petitioner is challenging the order of dismissal passed the Superintendent of Police, Jamui which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority, Director General of Police, Munger Circle, Munger and thereby confirmed the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner. 3. Petitioner has been dismissed from service on the charge that he remained absent from 17th November 1984 for 53 days. Thereafter petitioner again eloped from the place of posting from April 1985 and continued to be absent upto the date of framing of charge. 4. Petitioner was appointed as a constable in the year 1979 and while working at his place on 17th November 1984, with the permission of the competent authority, he went to bring his salary from Ariyari Police Station and he remained absent for 53 days. Thereafter he appeared before the Police Centre, Munger. On the second occasion, when he was posted as a guard in Barahia Circle, he absented from April 1985 and continued to remain absent upto the date of framing of charge. 4. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and in the departmental proceeding, as it appears from the counter affidavit, notices were sent to the petitioner on different occasions but he had not chosen to appear in the proceeding. Ultimately, the Superintendent of Police, Munger dismissed him from service. On appeal before the appellate authority, i.e. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur set aside the order of dismissal and remanded back the matter on the ground that the petitioner was not given second show cause notice. 5. On remand, again a proceeding was initiated and notices were sent to the petitioner. This time also, petitioner did not choose to appear and the enquiry report was submitted. In the departmental proceeding, petitioner was given notices on different occasions but he examined unmoved. Even the Enquiry Officer had sent a final notice for giving his explanation by way of last chance, but he refused to respond. This time also, petitioner did not choose to appear and the enquiry report was submitted. In the departmental proceeding, petitioner was given notices on different occasions but he examined unmoved. Even the Enquiry Officer had sent a final notice for giving his explanation by way of last chance, but he refused to respond. When a second show cause notice with the proposal of punishment was served on the petitioner, he filed his show cause and took the plea that the disciplinary authority has not applied his mind as merely sending the second show cause notice is not sufficient, rather in the departmental proceeding, more actions were required to be taken by the disciplinary authority. On receipt of second show cause as well as the enquiry report, the Superintendent of Police, Jamui vide order dated 3rd October, 1994 passed the order of punishment of dismissal against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order of punishment, petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police who considered the Memo of appeal and vide order dated 26th November 1996, dismissed his Memo of appeal and affirmed the order of dismissal. However, petitioner did not file any memorial against this order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is challenging the order of dismissal on the ground that no charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and he has not received any notice of the departmental proceeding. He has further submitted that neither the Enquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority considered the certificates of illness submitted by the petitioner which show non-application of mind of the authority concerned. Learned counsel for the State relied on different paragraphs of the counter affidavit, specially on Para-7 and submitted that the petitioner was served with the notice at the time of first departmental proceeding and also after remand he was given notice but it is surprising that the petitioner did not participate in the departmental proceeding. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is admitted fact that the petitioner remained absent from duty for the aforesaid period and nowhere it has been disputed that he was present at the place of posting. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is admitted fact that the petitioner remained absent from duty for the aforesaid period and nowhere it has been disputed that he was present at the place of posting. It is an admitted fact that during that period there was no record to show that he had filed any leave application for the aforesaid period, rather the submission is only with regard to non-observance of natural justice and that too in a limited sense that the charge was not served upon him and he had received notice either during the first enquiry or the second enquiry. 8. When the Memo of first order of dismissal was served upon the petitioner, he could know about the reason and the charges leveled against him and assailing the same order he had filed the appeal it will be presumed that the had notice and he cannot now say that he had no knowledge about the charges. So far notice is concerned, from Para-7 of the counter affidavit it appears that the notices were sent on different occasions. At the same time, it also appears from the counter affidavit that not only notices were served upon the petitioner but personally the Enquiry Officer requested the petitioner to participate in the departmental enquiry but he failed to do so. 9. In a similar case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if there is some violation of natural justice, unless prejudice is caused or no other result will come out, then it will be a useless formality to remand the matter back and get the matter adjudicated again. In this connection, it will be relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and others, (2007) 4 SCC 54 which is as under: “Para-28: A court of law does not insist on compliance with unless formality. It will not issue any such direction where the result would remain the same, in view of the fact situation prevailing or in terms of the legal consequences. Furthermore in this case, the selection of the appellant was illegal. He was not qualified on the cut-off date. Being ineligible to be considered for appointment, it would have been a futile exercise to give him an opportunity of being heard.” 10. Furthermore in this case, the selection of the appellant was illegal. He was not qualified on the cut-off date. Being ineligible to be considered for appointment, it would have been a futile exercise to give him an opportunity of being heard.” 10. In this case, the Court has also taken note of the earlier judgment in the case of Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, (2000)7 SCC 529 in which at para-25 it has been held as under: “Para-25: The “useless formality” theory it must be noted, is an exception. Apart from the class of cases of ‘admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion’ referred to above there has been considerable debate on the application of that theory in other cases. The divergent views expressed in regard to this theory have been elaborately considered by this Court in M.C. Mehta referred to above. This Court surveyed the views expressed in various judgments in England by Lord Reid, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Woolf, Lord Bingham, Megarry, J and Stgraughton, L. J. etc. in various cases and also views expressed by leading writers like Profs. Garner, Graig, de Smth, Wade, D.H. Clark etc. Some of them have said that orders passed in violation must always be quashed for otherwise the court will be prejudging the issue. Some others have said that there is no such absolute rule and prejudice must be shown. Yet, some others have applied via media rules. We do not think it necessary in this case to go deeper into these issues. In the ultimate analysis, it may depend on the facts of a particular case.” 11. Later on also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Biecco Lawrie Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (2009)10 SCC 32 reiterated the same principle of useless formality and held that even if there is a technical flaw, it will be useless to remand the matter back, if no other result will come out otherwise. However, in the present case it is admitted that while passing the order of dismissal and order of affirmance by the appellate authority, the medical certificates submitted by the petitioner were not considered. 12. However, in the present case it is admitted that while passing the order of dismissal and order of affirmance by the appellate authority, the medical certificates submitted by the petitioner were not considered. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during that period, petitioner was ill and in support of his contention he has also filed the medical certificates but in utter surprise those certificates were not considered either by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority. But it is surprising the petitioner has not brought on record the medical certificates explaining his illness so that this Court would have the occasion to examine the authenticity of his claim. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner should have filed a memorial but he failed to do so and also submitted that for the ends of justice, petitioner may be asked to file a memorial before the Director General of Police, Bihar. 13. Considering the overall facts of the case, petitioner is directed to file Memorial within 60 days from to-day before the Director General of Police, Bihar giving full details of fact and it is expected that the Director General of Policed will consider all the points and after giving opportunity to the petitioner will pass appropriate order in accordance with law. If the petitioner does not appear on notice sent by the authority concerned, the authority will be at liberty to pass ex parte order against the petitioner. 14. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed.