JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J. - In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the order passed by the Joint Director(Schools), R.D.E., Bhubaneswar in Appeal Case No.151 of 2010 dated 30/31.3.2012 is under challenge whereby and where under the appeal has been rejected without interfering with the order of termination issued against the petitioner dated 27.2.2004. 2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that he has been appointed in the school which was in receipt of block grant as Hindi Teacher on 14.12.1991 pursuant to the decision of the Managing Committee. The petitioner discharged his duty regularly but show cause notice was issued by the Managing Committee on the ground of long unauthorized absence from 12.4.1999 to 27.2.2004 and thereafter he was terminated from service vide order no.21 dated 27.2.2004. The ground of challenging the order of termination are: (i) the same is after thought for the reason that even before passing of the order of termination the Managing Committee has appointed Hindi Teachers and only to accommodate such teacher/teachers the petitioner has been terminated. (ii) Without holding any enquiry or even any enquiry has been conducted but second show cause notice has not been served upon him and as such there is violation of principle of natural justice. 3. Opposite parties have appeared including the opposite party no.5 who has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Hindi Teacher on 14.12.1991 but he has been discharging his duty sincerely but he became absent from duty from 12.4.1999 to 27.2.2004 in spite of repeated notice issued to him to resume duty failing which disciplinary action will be taken but he has not responded to it. The Managing Committee/Governing Body having no option, has decided to terminate the petitioner from service so that teaching of Hindi subject may not be hampered and the students may not be deprived from study of Hindi subject since in the institution in question there is only one Hindi teacher and when the petitioner has remained absent fairly for a period of about five years, in order to provide study in the Hindi subject, appointment has been made. So far as allegation that show cause notice has not been issued or there is violation of principle of natural justice, it has been submitted by them that in spite of repeated notice issued to the petitioner as has been annexed in the counter affidavit, he has not responded to it and therefore the Managing Committee having no option has constituted an enquiry which has submitted report on 25.2.2004, the allegations against the delinquent employee has been proved and the order of termination has been passed, hence the order of termination may not be interfered with. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their rival submissions, it is evident from the materials available on record that the petitioner was appointed as Hindi Teacher on 14.12.1991 in the institution in question which is in receipt of block grant. The petitioner has discharged his duty but from 12.4.1999 to 27.2.2004 he remained absent unauthorizedly. Show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner but not being responded by him, hence after conducting enquiry he has been terminated from service which is under challenge in this writ petition. The ground of malice has been taken since it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the pleadings made in the writ petition by way of ground that even before terminating the petitioner from service Hindi Teachers have been appointed, same has been taken note of the Joint Director in the impugned order but the same has not been considered. So far this ground is concerned, this Court has come across the said factual aspect and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the Managing Committee that if a person holding the post of Hindi Teacher will be absent for a period of about 5 years the Managing Committee cannot be deprived of from engaging temporary teachers to impart study in the aforesaid subject in the said institution, keeping in view this fact into consideration, appointments have been made but that does not mean the Managing Committee have grudge to terminate the petitioner from service. This Court, after considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.5, has found substance in his argument as because admittedly the institution in question is being run by the Managing Committee duly been recognized by the prescribed authority under the prevalent statute, hence in order to run the institution smoothly Teachers have been appointed, one of the subject is Hindi in which the petitioner was appointed on 14.12.1991 since the petitioner has remained absent from 12.4.1999 to 27.2.2004, the date of order of termination. The petitioner has admitted his guilt in remaining absent and begged apology for the purpose. Question is that the petitioner has got appointment to discharge his duty as Teacher, it is expected from him to perform his duty with all sincerity and honest so that study of the students in the school in Hindi Subject that too there is only one Hindi Teacher. When the petitioner remained absent for a long period of about 5 years and if the Managing Committee has appointed any Hindi Teacher to meet out stop gap arrangement, therefore action of the said Managing Committee is said to be legal and justifiable in appointing Hindi Teacher to impart study in the said subject. In view thereof, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before terminating the petitioner from service, Hindi Teachers have been appointed cannot be said to sound ground to assail the action of the Managing Committee in terminating the petitioner from service. 5. In view thereof, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before terminating the petitioner from service, Hindi Teachers have been appointed cannot be said to sound ground to assail the action of the Managing Committee in terminating the petitioner from service. 5. The other ground has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that principle of natural justice has been violated because copy of the enquiry report or the second show cause notice has not been issued to him, it is evident from the materials available on record, as has been averred by the opposite party no.5, although the said document is in Odia language the English translated version has been filed which is on record, from which it is evident that show cause notice have been issued to the petitioner time and again but when the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent, communication has been made to him to resume his duty by giving him time and caution that in case he will fail to join duty, disciplinary action will be taken but even then he has not resumed his duty, hence having no option the Managing Committee has issued show cause notice to the petitioner in which he has admitted his guilt for remaining duty unauthorisedly and begged apology for that purpose. It is settled that if guilt is being admitted by the delinquent there is no need to even go for regular enquiry of the show cause, it is for the reason that enquiry is needed if the fact is in dispute but when the delinquent employee has pleaded his guilt, there is no question of conducting any enquiry, hence the ground of violation of principle of natural justice is having no force. 6. This Court, after coming across the materials available on record, has taken into consideration that the petitioner has been appointed as Hindi Teacher but remained absent for period of 5 years, hence the Managing Committee has terminated him from service after issuing show cause notice wherein allegation has been admitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice. This Court, after coming across the materials available on record, has taken into consideration that the petitioner has been appointed as Hindi Teacher but remained absent for period of 5 years, hence the Managing Committee has terminated him from service after issuing show cause notice wherein allegation has been admitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice. The Joint Director on its appellate jurisdiction, after taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter, the larger interest of the students and also taking into consideration the fact that teacher has already been appointed to impart study in Hindi subject who has put in 14 years of service as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.5, has rightly not interfered with the order of termination. 7. In view of the reasons assigned above, in my considered view, the order dated 30/31.3.2012 passed by the Joint Director(Schools), R.D.E., Bhubaneswar under Annexure-9 needs no interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed