JUDGMENT : 1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 01.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.7344 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 05.09.2019 has been refused to be interfered with by which the services of the writ petitioner working on the post of Block Accounts Manager, Kashmar, Bokaro has been terminated. 2. The brief facts of the lis as per the pleading, which are required to be enumerated, read as hereunder: The writ petitioner was appointed in pursuance of an advertisement issued by Jharkhand Rural Health Mission as Block Accounts Manager vide letter dated 01.10.2008. He was posted at Primary Health Centre, Gomia block vide letter dated 15.10.2008. The work assigned to the writ petitioner was to provide assistance in execution of accounts related to various health programs running at block level and further for execution of National Rural Health Mission, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, use of computer and other instruments. The irregularities and illegalities committed by the certain employees in National Health Rural Mission of embezzlement of government money to the tune of Rs. 6,97,43,832.29/-has been surfaced for which an F.I.R. has been instituted against ten persons including the petitioner being Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 15 of 2019 dated 26.08.2019 for the commission of offence under Sections 109/120B/406/409/420/467/471/477(A) of I.P.C. and under section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and accordingly, the services of the writ petitioner has been terminated. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the order of termination, approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 7344 of 2019 by taking the plea that the order of termination has been passed unilaterally which is in violation of the principles of natural justice and further without waiting for the outcome of the criminal case, the order of termination has been passed. While, on the other hand, the respondent-State of Jharkhand had appeared and taken the plea that in course of investigation conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau regarding the financial irregularity under the National Rural Health Mission in the district of Dhanbad, the culpability of the writ petitioner has detected and therefore, he has been terminated from service being on contract basis as also directed to take action against Shri Ajit Kumar, District Accounts Manager, Shri Pramod Kumar, Block Account Manager, Jodhapokhar, Shri Arun Kumar Singh, Block Account Manager, Primary Health Centre, Bhaghmara and Shri Ramjay Kumar Singh, who were involved in irregularities and misappropriation. The Writ Court, after appreciating the fact and taking into consideration the nature of appointment of the writ petitioner and the nature of allegation, dismissed the writ petition against which the present intra-court appeal has been filed. 3. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that even though the services of the writ petitioner was on contract basis but the same ought to have been dispensed with after following the principles of natural justice. But, having not done so, the order of termination is bad in the eye of law. He has further taken the plea that the sole basis of termination of the services of the writ petitioner is the institution of F.I.R. Further, attention of this Court was drawn with respect to the fact that when the F.I.R. was lodged on 26.08.2019 then how the reference of lodging of F.I.R. could find place in the show cause notice which was issued much earlier on 09.08.2019, as also, ground of not providing reasonable time to defend himself by giving reply to the show cause has been taken since only three days’ time was given to the writ petitioner in the show cause to defend himself. 4. Per contra, Mr. Sharad Kaushal, learned AC to AAG-III has submitted by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge that the appointment of the writ petitioner since was on contract basis, therefore, the order of termination was passed without holding any enquiry taking into consideration the nature of appointment wherein the discipline and conduct rule is not applicable rather the terms and conditions of the contract will be said to be applicable. Further, so far as the contention raised on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner about infirmity in the show cause by making reference of date of lodging of F.I.R. even if is accepted, then also, no relief can be granted in favour of the writ petitioner reason being that it has come in the report of the Anti-Corruption Bureau in course of investigation of the case that the substantial amount has been credited in the personal account of the writ petitioner and even if the order of termination will be quashed and remitted before the concerned competent authority for taking a decision, then also, there is no chance of change in the factual aspect and in that circumstances, it will be nothing but a futile and empty exercise. Therefore, submission has been made that if in such a serious nature of allegation, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order of termination, the same cannot be said to suffer from infirmity, as such, the instant appeal lacks merit. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. The admitted fact herein is that the writ petitioner was appointed on contract basis in pursuance of the advertisement floated by the National Rural Health Mission, although no agreement has been appended either to the writ petition or before this court, however, the writ petitioner claims to be appointed on contract basis. The fact about appointment on contract basis is correct after going through the offer of appointment, letter appended to the paperbook, but no copy of the agreement is available on record. Be that as it may, when the writ petitioner while was working on contract basis, a serious irregularity had crept up about embezzlement of public money to the tune of Rs. 6,97,43,832.29/-. In consequence thereof, a criminal case was instituted for commission of offence under Sections 109/120B/406/409/420/467/471/477(A) of I.P.C. and under Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The appellant-writ petitioner since was on contract basis, has been terminated from service w.e.f. 05.09.2019. 6,97,43,832.29/-. In consequence thereof, a criminal case was instituted for commission of offence under Sections 109/120B/406/409/420/467/471/477(A) of I.P.C. and under Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. The appellant-writ petitioner since was on contract basis, has been terminated from service w.e.f. 05.09.2019. The appellant-writ petitioner has taken the plea about non-observance of principles of natural justice as also the material irregularity crept up by making reference of wrong date of institution of F.I.R. in the show cause, therefore, the order of termination, according to the appellant-writ petitioner, cannot be said to be justified. Further, as per the appellant-writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge has not appreciated these aspects of the matter. 6. So far as the observance of principles of natural justice or making wrong reference of the date of F.I.R. in the show cause is concerned, even accepting that the principles of natural justice is required to be followed in the matter of contract appointment in order to provide opportunity of hearing but even then, in the given facts of the case, when the Anti-Corruption Bureau in course of investigation has found the credit of large sum of amount in the personal account of the appellant-writ petitioner as would be evident from the report of the Anti-Corruption Bureau as appended to the paper-book, in such circumstances, even if the matter would be remitted before the authority for the purpose of observance of principles of natural justice, there is no likelihood of change in the factual aspect and it is settled that when the fact is not likely to be changed even after providing opportunity of hearing, the principles of natural justice is not required to be followed otherwise, it will be simply said to be futile and empty exercise. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Escorts Farms Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. & others, (2004) 4 SCC 281 , where in at paragraph no.64 it has been held which reads as under: “64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of government grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Remand of cases of a group of transferees who were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so, when on this legal question all affected parties have got full opportunity of hearing before the High Court and in this appeal before this Court. Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.” In Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and Ors., (2015) 8 SCC 519 wherein their Lordships have held at paragraph-39 which is being reproduced as under: “39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasizing that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straitjacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason-perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling-it is felt that a fair hearing “would make no difference”-meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker.” 7. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason-perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling-it is felt that a fair hearing “would make no difference”-meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker.” 7. Further, so far as making wrong reference of the date of F.I.R. in the show cause is concerned, even on this ground if the show cause will be quashed, then also, the writ petitioner will not get any relief on account of specific report of the Anti-Corruption Bureau of his active involvement in the embezzlement of public money as per the report wherein it has come that the money has been credited in the personal account of the writ petitioner which will also lead to futile and empty exercise as per the discussion made hereinabove. 8. Learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the nature of allegation as also the nature of appointment, if has declined to interfere with the impugned order, the same according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 9. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed.