ORDER : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Instant intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.05.2017 rendered in WP (C) No. 78 of 2016 captioned "Dharani Kr. Koch v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.". 2. By virtue of the judgment impugned, writ petition has been dismissed. 3. The first contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the service of the petitioner as a teacher has been terminated by the Managing Committee of the school (respondents No. 7 & 8) on 09.11.2015, the petitioner has been denied the right of hearing, as such order of termination has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned Single Judge while referring to Annexure-4 of the writ petition, which is a representation under the style appeal submitted by the appellant to the Secretary, Manwapara SSA/UP School mentioning therein, that the resolution regarding termination was received by him on 26.01.2016, he himself has relinquished the post due to his alleged misconduct and bad character but appealed for re-instatement. Further, in the impugned judgment it has been mentioned that the petitioner's appointment was on contract basis. Finally, in the said background writ petition has been dismissed. 5. It is true that the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 09.11.2015 resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner, he was not given chance to explain his position. However, it has been mentioned that the petitioner's character being bad, therefore, terminated, in his place Shri Penjing D. Shira (respondent No. 9) has been appointed as Hindi teacher in the year 2015 itself. 6. The record reveals that the petitioner initially was appointed as a Hindi teacher for a period of 59 days on contract basis. Thereafter, period has not been extended in writing, but however, it is not disputed that the petitioner then continued to work as Assistant teacher in the school till the date of his termination on 09.11.2015, which would mean impliedly his term of contract has been extended but has not been permanently appointed. 7. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent-school is a Government Aided private school. 8. In the resolution, it appears that the Managing Committee keeping in view the larger interest of the student and school has not mentioned the actual reasons regarding bad character. 7. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent-school is a Government Aided private school. 8. In the resolution, it appears that the Managing Committee keeping in view the larger interest of the student and school has not mentioned the actual reasons regarding bad character. But when the writ petition was filed, respondents No. 7 and 8 in their affidavit-in-opposition in para 9 have clearly stated that a complaint dated 21.10.2015 was filed by the parents and other elder members of one of the students studying in the school accusing the petitioner of having sexually assaulted their minor daughter who was studying in Class VI in the same school. 9. The Managing Committee in their wisdom for protecting, exploitation of the minor child, her parents and then also in order to cover up the actual act of the petitioner, used the word "bad character" in the resolution dated 09.11.2015 and terminated the service of the petitioner. 10. The allegation has not been categorically refuted by the petitioner even in his rejoinder affidavit. The petitioner in his representation filed under the style appeal to the Secretary, Manwapara SSA/UP School has consciously mentioned that he has been terminated from the post by the Managing Committee due to misconduct/loose character then has mentioned as under:- "On the circumstance stated above, I would like to appeal your honour to consider my case for the first time and kindly reinstated me as Hindi teacher." 11. Thereafter, when the petitioner could not get response, he got legal notice served upon respondent No. 7-Headmaser-cum-Secretary, Manwapara SSA/UP School dated 02.02.2016. Paras 5 and 6 of the notice are relevant to be quoted :- "5. That my client being the head of his family if not be allowed to re-join the post his whole family will suffer financial hardships and being continuously serving in the school for more than 5 (five) years his case may be considered and if any mistake committed by my client may be condoned and pardoned. 6. That my client being the head of his family if not be allowed to re-join the post his whole family will suffer financial hardships and being continuously serving in the school for more than 5 (five) years his case may be considered and if any mistake committed by my client may be condoned and pardoned. 6. That the allegation made in the Resolution dated 09.11.2015, that my client is a man of bad character, even though he must be given opportunity to reply on the allegation made therein and if anything, my client will be rectified and also will not repeat the same thing in future and for that reason anything wrong committed by him may be pardoned and allowed to continue in service." 12. Reading the representation under the style appeal of the petitioner as he has submitted to the No. 7 and then legal notice, more particularly above two quoted paras from legal notice sent by him, it is quite clear that the petitioner has not denied specifically the allegation instead has in a manner hoodwinked it in the process has prayed for pardon and has also made it clear that he would not repeat the same in future. 13. The conduct of the petitioner and his aforesaid position clearly demonstrate that even if he would have been given the chance of submitting explanation the result could not be changed. Therefore, to claim that the principles of natural justice have been violated, pales into insignificance. It is quite shocking and unbecoming of a teacher to do what allegedly has been done by him. 14. It is true that when a punitive action is taken, same shall abide by adherence to the principles of natural justice means he shall be given an opportunity of tendering explanation or for setting up his defence. But when the position is admitted and clear then to give an opportunity of hearing or tendering explanation shall be an idle formality. In the instant case, providing opportunity to defend would be totally an idle formality. When it is so, adherence to the principles of natural justice shall be otiose. 15. Learned Advocate General in this behalf has rightly placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. v. Mansoor Ali Khan: (2000) 7 SCC 529 . When it is so, adherence to the principles of natural justice shall be otiose. 15. Learned Advocate General in this behalf has rightly placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. v. Mansoor Ali Khan: (2000) 7 SCC 529 . Paras 21, 22, 23 & 25 are advantageous to be quoted:- "21. As pointed recently in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India: (1999) 6 SCC 237 there can be certain situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For example where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary. Similarly, if the quashing of the order which is in breach of natural justice is likely to result in revival of another order which is in itself illegal as in Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P.: AIR 1966 SC 828 : (1966) 2 SCR 172 it is not necessary to quash the order merely because of violation of principles of natural justice. 22. In M.C. Mehta: (1999) 6 SCC 237 it was pointed out that at one time, it was held in Ridge vs. Baldwin: 1964 AC 40: (1963) 2 All ER 66 (HL) that breach of principles of natural justice was in itself treated as prejudice and that no other "de facto" prejudice needed to be proved. But, since then the rigour of the rule has been relaxed not only in England but also in our country. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980) 4 SCC 379 Chinnappa Reddy, J. followed Ridge vs. Baldwin: 1964 AC 40: (1963) 2 All ER 66 (HL) and set aside the order of supersession of the New Delhi Metropolitan Committee rejecting the argument that there was no prejudice though notice was not given. The proceedings were quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. But even in that case certain exceptions were laid down to which we shall presently refer. 23. Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.L. Kapoor case (1980) 4 SCC 379 , laid down two exceptions (at SCC p. 395) namely, if upon admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible, then in such a case, the principle that breach of natural justice was in itself prejudice, would not apply. 23. Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.L. Kapoor case (1980) 4 SCC 379 , laid down two exceptions (at SCC p. 395) namely, if upon admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible, then in such a case, the principle that breach of natural justice was in itself prejudice, would not apply. In other words if no other conclusion was possible on admitted or indisputable facts, it is not necessary to quash the order which was passed in violation of natural justice. Of course, this being an exception, great care must be taken in applying this exception. 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 of 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. Mehtal : (1999) 6 SCC 237 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 Straughton L.J. etc. in various cases and also views expressed by leading writers like Profs. Garner, Craig, de Smith, 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." 16. Applying the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court vis-à-vis adherence to the principles of natural justice, it is quite clear that the instant case has its own admitted facts having clear nexus with the alleged immorality that too by a teacher (petitioner). Therefore, for not giving chance to the petitioner to tender explanation, no scope to set aside the order of termination. A teacher is the backbone of the society. It is the school where the future of the nation is shaped. Therefore, for not giving chance to the petitioner to tender explanation, no scope to set aside the order of termination. A teacher is the backbone of the society. It is the school where the future of the nation is shaped. When allegedly a teacher falls prey to alleged devilish activities, can such a teacher be permitted to continue to impart education to the children, answer has to be in the negative. 17. The petitioner even otherwise has no enforceable right because his appointment as Assistant teacher Hindi was for a period of 59 days which period has been impliedly extended but he has not been permanently appointed. Therefore, on this count also order of termination by the Managing Committee cannot be found fault with. 18. For the stated reasons and for the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference, same is upheld. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.