JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.02.2020 passed by Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sitapur, by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated. 2. The impugned order dated 15.02.2020 states that by order dated 20.10.1989 passed by the Commissioner Consolidation, Lucknow, U.P., the services of the petitioner was terminated. Against the order dated 20.10.1989, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No.9578 of 1989. In the said writ petition an interim order had been granted by this Court. In pursuance of interim order the petitioner was continuing in service, the writ petition however was dismissed on 12.04.2010. But the petitioner has not informed the authorities. Two applications were also dismissed on 26.04.2019. Hence the continuance of petitioner in service was due to the fact that the authorities has no knowledge hence the continuance was not legal. In the said circumstances there was no justification for his continuance in service hence his services is terminated with immediate effect. 3. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner heard on telephone as he expressed his inability to connect on video conferencing. He mainly submitted that prior to the passing of the order dated 15.02.2020 neither any show cause notice has been issued nor any opportunity was provided to the petitioner. The order dated 15.02.2020 has been passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. On the other hand, Shri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel through video conferencing has pointed out that the C.M. Application Nos.30478/2019 and 30479/2019 has also been rejected by this Court vide its order dated 26.04.2019 even that has not been informed by the petitioner. The petitioner was continuing in the service only due to the interim order dated 07.11.1989. The opportunity of hearing is not required in the present case. It has further been submitted by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the petitioner has neither informed the dismissal of the writ petition in the year 2010 nor the dismissal of the applications moved in the year 2019. 5. After hearing the counsels for both the parties the position which emerges is that the petitioner was continuing in the service in the garb of the interim order dated 07.11.1989. The Writ Petition No.16815(W)/9578/1989 was dismissed in default on 12.04.2010. 5. After hearing the counsels for both the parties the position which emerges is that the petitioner was continuing in the service in the garb of the interim order dated 07.11.1989. The Writ Petition No.16815(W)/9578/1989 was dismissed in default on 12.04.2010. The restoration application was filed in the year 2019 has also been dismissed on 26.04.2019 and none of the reasons indicated in the order dated 15.02.2020 has been disputed by the petitioner, rather stand admitted in the writ petition particularly in Para 24 where it is also stated that a restoration application is pending but without disclosing the dates of applications it however, establishes the fact that his writ petition had been dismissed on default. The date of dismissal of writ petition on 12.04.2010 as disclosed in the impugned order has not been disputed nor the date of dismissal of two miscellaneous applications, which obviously might have been moved earlier for restoration. 6. The order impugned in the present writ petition i.e. order dated 15.02.2020 does not in substance amount to any fresh order of termination, it is merely an order passed as a consequence of the dismissal of the Writ Petition No.16815(W)/9578/1989 preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 20.10.1989 terminating the service of the petitioner. Hence the question of providing opportunity of hearing does not arise before passing the order dated 15.02.2020. It is in fact an order of discontinuance of service which were continuing on the basis of interim order of a dismissed writ petition. 7. The fact of order terminating the services of the petitioner vide order dated 20.10.1989 and the fact that a writ petition was preferred and further writ petition was dismissed about ten years ago having been controverted in the writ petition. 8. In consequence of that order irrespective of language used in the order but in substance, as mentioned in the order itself. It is a consequence of dismissal of writ petition. 9. As far as the argument of learned counsel of the petitioner regarding non-compliance of principle of audi alteram partem. The Apex Court in the case of Dharmarathmakara R.A. Ramaswamy Mudaliar Ed. Institution Vs. The Educational Appellate Tribunal & Anr. has held that in a case where allegation and charges are admitted and no possible defence is placed before the authority concerned. What enquiry is to be made when one admits violations? The Apex Court in the case of Dharmarathmakara R.A. Ramaswamy Mudaliar Ed. Institution Vs. The Educational Appellate Tribunal & Anr. has held that in a case where allegation and charges are admitted and no possible defence is placed before the authority concerned. What enquiry is to be made when one admits violations? In the present case, the facts are almost admitted. The case reveals itself and is apparent on the face of the record and in spite of opportunity no worthwhile explanation is forthcoming and it is not a fit case to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others has held as follows.:- "This bring us to the question as to whether the principles of natural justice were required to be complied with. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the audi alteram partem is one of the basic pillar of natural justice which means no one should be condemned unheard. However, whenever possible the principle of natural justice should be followed. Ordinarily in a case of this nature the same should be complied with. Visitor may in a given situation issue notice to the employee who would be effected by the ultimate order that may be passed. He may not be given an oral hearing, but may be allowed to make a representation in writing. It is also, however, well-settled that it cannot be put any straight jacket formula. It may not be in a given case applied unless a prejudice is shown. It is not necessary where it would be a futile exercise. A court of law does not insist on compliance of useless 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." 11. In the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. S.G. Kotturappa and Another reported at [(2005) 3SCC 409)] the Apex Court has held as under:- "The question as to what extent, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with would depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. The principles of natural justice cannot be applied in vacuum. They cannot be put in any straitjacket formula. The principles of natural justice cannot be applied in vacuum. They cannot be put in any straitjacket formula. The principles of natural justice are furthermore not required to be complied with when it will lead to an empty formality. What is needed for the employer in a case of this nature is to apply the objective criteria for arriving at the subjective satisfaction. If the criteria required for arriving at an objective satisfaction stands fulfilled, the principles of natural justice may not have to be complied with, in view of the fact that the same stood complied with before imposing punishments upon the respondents on each occasion and, thus, the respondents, therefore, could not have improved their stand even if a further opportunity was given." 12. In the case of Punjab National Bank and Others v. Manjeet Singh and Another reported at [ (2006) 8 SCC 647 )], this Court has held as under:- "The principles of natural justice were also not required to be complied with as the same would have been an empty formality. The court will not insist on compliance with the principles of natural justice in view of the binding nature of the award. Their application would be limited to a situation where the factual position or legal implication arising thereunder is disputed and not where it is not in dispute or cannot be disputed. If only one conclusion is possible, a writ would not issue only because there was a violation of the principle of natural justice." 13. Hence, under the undisputed facts of the present case in any manner render the impugned order invalid on account of providing any opportunity prior to passing of impugned order. In these circumstances providing of an opportunity of hearing would merely be an empty formality and would be of no avail and a futile exercise. 14. Under these circumstances and reasons and law discussed hereinabove, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 15.02.2020 passed by Opposite Party No.3 there is no merit in the case and hence, the writ petition is dismissed.