JUDGMENT : Valmiki J. Mehta, J. 1. By this writ petition, petitioner prays for setting aside of the order dated 1.9.1997 terminating his services. Petitioner also claims reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 2. Petitioner claims that he was falsely got involved in criminal case as per FIR 143/1994 and he was ultimately acquitted on 9.12.1997 in terms of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and whereafter when he approached the respondents no.1and 2/employer for reinstatement in services, he was not allowed to join duties. It is alleged that petitioner’s termination is illegal and therefore he claims that his termination order is to be set-aside and he should be reinstated in services. 3. Respondents no. 1 and 2 have asked for dismissal of the petition on the ground that petitioner remained absent for duty without any reason whatsoever from 29.9.1994 till 1997. Petitioner was asked to join duties by sending him a communication at his last known address and on failure of the petitioner to join, notices were published in the Hindi newspaper ‘Navbharat Times’ on 28.2.1997 asking him to join duties. A confirmation notice was also sent at the last known address of the petitioner but the same was received back from the postal authority with the remarks that no person in the name of Mr. Rajbir is living in the village and therefore the notice was returned. On not receiving the response from the petitioner, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 1.9.1997 which is said to be in compliance of Rule 19(2) of the CCS(CCA) Rules. 4. A reference to Annexure P-3 filed by the petitioner shows that petitioner did not join services from 4.5.1994 till 20.1.1998 due to his being involved in a criminal case. Therefore, the petitioner admits his absence from duties. Merely because a criminal case is going on cannot mean that petitioner has no obligation to not report to the employer for performing his duties. It is not as if that the petitioner was incarcerated and therefore he could not join duties. Therefore, the petitioner admits his absence from duties. Merely because a criminal case is going on cannot mean that petitioner has no obligation to not report to the employer for performing his duties. It is not as if that the petitioner was incarcerated and therefore he could not join duties. No doubt principles of natural justice have to be followed but they have adequately been followed before passing the termination order dated 1.9.1997 because notice was sent to the address of the petitioner to join duties, and thereafter notices were even published in the newspaper and confirmation notice was sent to the petitioner’s address which returned back with the remarks that petitioner was not living at the given address. Since no response was received from the petitioner’s side and nor he joined duties, there was no other requirement to be complied with so far as natural justice is concerned. 5. In view of the above, petitioner voluntarily abandoned his services, his services were terminated after following the principles of natural justice, no detailed enquiry was required because petitioner did not respond to the notices issued against him and which were even published in newspaper, and therefore, petitioner now cannot claim illegality of the termination order dated 1.9.1997. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.