JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was taken up for final adjudication at this stage. 2. Aggrieved of the impugned order dated 6th October, 2005, terminating the service of the petitioner, the writ proceedings have been instituted claiming relief under the prayer clause, which reads thus:- "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that your lordships be pleased to called entire record relating to this case and after perusing the same may be please be accept and allow this writ petition of the petitioner and quash the impugned order dated 6.10.2005 (Annexure-13) by which petitioner was terminate from the service and after perusal of the same direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. Any other appropriate order or direction which Hon'ble High Court think fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner in the view of facts and circumstances of the case. The cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 3. The skeletal material facts, indispensable for appreciation of the controversy raised in the instant writ application needs to be first noticed. On 23rd April, 1985, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lab Technician at Primary Medical & Health Centre, Lalsot, Rajasthan. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that in addition to Primary Health Centre at Lalsot; he also worked at Primary Health Centre, Bandlesahare, Bharatpur, in the office of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bhilwara, Chief Medical & Health Officer, Karoli, Primary Health Centre Media, Karoli etc. while in service. However, by order dated 5th November, 1996, the petitioner was transferred from Todabheem to Primary Health Centre, Karanpur (Sawai Madhopur), against the vacant post of 'Lab Technician' in administrative exigencies canceling the order dated 9/14th October, 1996, by which he was relieved to join in the office of the Joint Director, Medical & Health Services (Zone), Kota. Be that as it may, the petitioner did not join at the transferred station for reason best known to him, and therefore, was called upon vide order dated 5th February, 1997 (Annexure-3), to immediately report for duty, with reference to letter/communication dated 24th January, 1997, clearly indicating to him of his negligence and willful absence, for not joining the duties at the station of posting. In response, the petitioner submitted his joining report on 6th February, 1997. In response, the petitioner submitted his joining report on 6th February, 1997. Vide order dated 7th February, 1997, the petitioner was directed to report for duty at Primary Health Centre, Karanpur, in compliance of the order dated 5th November, 1996, since there was no vacant post available at Primary Health Centre, Mandrayal (Sawai Madhopur). The petitioner addressed a communication to the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Karoli/Sawai Madhopur on 12th February, 1997, to post him at a place other than Karanpur, as he apprehended eminent danger to his life and lives of his family members on account of enmity. The representation was followed by reminder dated 28th April, 1997, 28th December, 1997, 30th December, 1997 and 10th January, 2001, and thereafter, there was a complete silence for over five years until the petitioner was called upon to show cause, vide notice dated 30th August, 2005, for his willful absence for almost eight years with effect from 7th February, 1997. It was further detailed out in the notice that the petitioner was accorded an opportunity of personal hearing on 20th July, 2005, in response to his representation dated 6th June, 2005, but the petitioner did not furnish any satisfactory explanation for his long absence from duty. Therefore, invoking the provisions of Rule 86(4) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1951', for short), the petitioner was called upon to submit his reply within fifteen days, failing which the irresistible inference would be that the petitioner had nothing to say in this regard and decision will be taken in accordance with law at his costs and consequences. The notice was responded by the petitioner through a representation dated 12th September, 2005, and he was also accorded personal hearing, but the petitioner could not furnish any tenable reason or evidence justifying his long absence from duty for eight years. The competent authority was not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner as aforesaid and treated his absence as voluntary resignation from service invoking the power contained under the mandate of Rule 86(4) of the Rules of 1951. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts, submitted that since the petitioner apprehended eminent danger to his life and lives of his family members, therefore, repeatedly requested to the respondents to accord him posting at any place except Karanpur. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts, submitted that since the petitioner apprehended eminent danger to his life and lives of his family members, therefore, repeatedly requested to the respondents to accord him posting at any place except Karanpur. It is further submitted that in the meantime, the petitioner's mother fell seriously ill, and therefore, he could not carry out compliance of the order dated 7th February, 1997. The learned counsel would further submit that the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without initiation of an enquiry and affording him an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned order dated 6th October, 2005 (Annexure-13), terminating his services, is bad in the eye of law being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the mandate of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 5. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have filed their reply stating that the petitioner willfully remained absent from the duty for more than eight years. He was served with a notice to show case as to why his willful absence for a period of more than eight years, be not treated as voluntary resignation. 6. Having received no satisfactory reply and explanation justifying the conduct of the petitioner for remaining willfully absent from the duty for a period of more than eight years, and after affording an opportunity of hearing on 20th July, 2005, his services have been rightly terminated. Further, no charge-sheet or enquiry proceedings are required to follow in cases of voluntary resignation since the misconduct of the petitioner for remaining absent from duty for more than eight years, is an act, which stands proved from the documentary evidence and admitted facts. According to the learned counsel, not only the explanation furnished by the petitioner was unsatisfactory; there is not even an iota of evidence to sustain the pretext of danger to his life and lives of his family members, allegedly owing to his posting at Karanpur. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the documents placed on record by the petitioner himself, proves his willful absence from duty for more than eight years. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the respondents, in terminating the services of the petitioner, cannot be faulted on any of the grounds pleaded in support thereof. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the respondents, in terminating the services of the petitioner, cannot be faulted on any of the grounds pleaded in support thereof. Be that as it may, in view of the documentary evidence available on record, even if an enquiry was conducted, the result would have been inevitable i.e. determination even then would have been, willful absence from duty by the petitioner without any reason. Moreover, the principles of natural justice have been complied with in letter and spirit as the petitioner was served with a notice, his explanation was properly considered by the competent authority, and he was also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record. 8. In the face of the office order dated 5th November, 1996 (Annexure-2), it is evident that the petitioner was transferred and directed to report for duty in the administrative exigencies at Primary Health Centre, Karanpur (Sawai Madhopur), against the vacant post of 'Lab Technician' with immediate effect. The petitioner did not carry out the directions and did not comply with the order of transfer and posting. As a sequel, he was called upon vide communication dated 5th February, 1997, to report for duty and in compliance thereof, he reported on 6th February, 1997, but owing to the fact that there was no vacancy available at Mandrayal, the petitioner was directed to report for duty at Karanpur in compliance of the initial order dated 5th November, 1996. The petitioner instead of reporting for duty at Karanpur, made a representation for his posting elsewhere than Karanpur (Sawai Madhopur), allegedly apprehending eminent danger to his life and lives of his family members. Ultimately, the petitioner was served with the notice dated 30th August, 2005, invoking mandate of Rule 86(4) of the Rules of 1951, treating his absence from the duty as voluntary resignation. At this juncture, it would be relevant to quote the text of Rule 86 of the Rules of 1951, which reads thus:- "Rule 86. Ultimately, the petitioner was served with the notice dated 30th August, 2005, invoking mandate of Rule 86(4) of the Rules of 1951, treating his absence from the duty as voluntary resignation. At this juncture, it would be relevant to quote the text of Rule 86 of the Rules of 1951, which reads thus:- "Rule 86. Absence after expiry of leave: (1) A Government servant who is absent from duty without leave or before leave applied for has been sanctioned by the competent authority shall be treated to have remained willfully absent from duty; and such absence shall amount to interruption in service involving forfeiture of past service unless, on satisfactory reasons being furnished, the absence is regularised by grant of leave due or is commuted into extra-ordinary leave by the authority competent to sanction leave. (2)[(a)] A Government servant who remains absent from duty after the expiry of the sanctioned leave or after communication of refusal of extension of leave is not entitled to any pay and allowances for the period of such absence and the period of such absence shall be commuted into extra-ordinary leave unless on satisfactory reasons being furnished, the period of absence is regularised by grant of leave due by the authority to grant leave. (b) Willful absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action.] (3) Notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-rules (1) and (2) above the disciplinary authority may initiate departmental proceeding under Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, against a Government servant who willfully remains absent from duty for a period exceeding one month and if the charge of willful absence from duty is proved against him, he may be removed from service.] (4) Unless the State Government, in view of the special circumstances of the case, determines otherwise a State Government employee who remains absent from duty for a continuous period exceeding five years other than on foreign service, whether with or without leave, shall be deemed to have resigned from service. Provided that a reasonable opportunity to explain the reasons for such absence shall be given to the employee before the provisions of the sub-rule are involved." 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner responded to the notice dated 30th August, 2005 (Annexure-11), by his representation dated 12th September, 2005. Provided that a reasonable opportunity to explain the reasons for such absence shall be given to the employee before the provisions of the sub-rule are involved." 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner responded to the notice dated 30th August, 2005 (Annexure-11), by his representation dated 12th September, 2005. The petitioner could neither furnish any satisfactory explanation for his willful absence from duty for more than eight years nor placed on record any document in support of the explanation furnished. There is not even an iota of evidence to substantiate the alleged fact for he being apprehensive of eminent danger of his life and lives of his family members at Karanpur. The competent authority taking into consideration the explanation furnished by the petitioner, in response to notice dated 30th August, 2005, and also affording an opportunity of personal hearing, concluded that the explanation furnished was not satisfactory, and therefore, rightly treated his willful absence from more than eight years as voluntary resignation from the service as contemplated under Rule 86(4) of the Rules of 1951, and passed the impugned order dated 6th October, 2005. 10. Having considered the facts, circumstances and materials available on record in totality, the moot question is, whether the failure to observe the principles of natural justice, ipso-facto, would render the action illegal? The closely related with this question is the question whether failure to observe the principles of natural justice, does at all matter, if the observance would have made no difference, in view of the admitted and indisputable facts, speaking loud and clear. If in view of the admitted and indisputable facts, the conclusion that can be arrived at is only one, in my opinion, the theory of "useless formality", can be pressed into service. In a catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared that one could not complain of a failure of non-compliance of principles of natural justice unless he could show the prejudice caused. 11. The learned counsel has not questioned the mandate of Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1989. The facts that Shri Shyam Lal (respondent number 4) also qualified the qualifying examination for promotion as contemplated under Rule 29 of the Rules of 1989 as well as his seniority to the petitioner, are not disputed. 12. 11. The learned counsel has not questioned the mandate of Rule 27(2) of the Rules of 1989. The facts that Shri Shyam Lal (respondent number 4) also qualified the qualifying examination for promotion as contemplated under Rule 29 of the Rules of 1989 as well as his seniority to the petitioner, are not disputed. 12. Principles of natural justice cannot be stressed and applied irrespective of the facts of the case where even if the opportunity of hearing is granted. The result that could be arrived at will be the only one, which has been assailed for its non-compliance and in such circumstances, the theory of 'useless formality', would be attracted and applied with full force. Moreover, by a catena of judgments, it is now well settled that the courts are not meant to perpetuate an illegality, rather it is the duty of the courts to rectify the errors/mistakes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the somewhat similar situation in the case of Hotel Balaji & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.:, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 536 observed thus:- "To perpetuate an error is no heroism. To rectify it is the compulsion of the judicial conscience. In this, we derive comfort and strength from the wise and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce v. Decameter (A.M.Y. at page 18) : "a judge ought to be wise enough to know that he is fallible and therefore, ever ready to learn: great and honest enough to discard all mere pride of opinion and follows truth wherever it may lead: and courageous enough to acknowledge his errors." 13. For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ petition is devoid of any substance, and lacks in merit, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 14. Ordered accordingly. 15. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******