Judgment B. L. Yadav, A. K. Ganguly, JJ. 1. Whether Audi Alteram Partem rule of natural justices would be attracted and whether petitioner could be promoted before expiry of the period of punishment in the form of withholding two increments are the short questions for our considerations in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution. 2. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the Middle Management grade Scale-II post in the State Bank of India with effect from 1st August, 1987 as well as 1st August, 1988 on the basis of the seniority channel, without taking into account the punishment of stoppage of two increments which have already been awarded by the respondents under the signature of the general Manager (Operation) vide order contained in Memo No.1072, dated 4th July, 1987 particularly taking into account that the persons who were junior to the petitioners are going to be considered for such promotion ; and next relief is that the punishment for withholding of two increments consequent upon the disciplinary proceedings order was passed on 4th July, 1987 by the General Manager (Operation)and the order, dated 31st December, 1987, passed by the appellate authority was also quashed and in any case to direct the Appellate Authority to decide the review-application which was filed by the petitioner and was still pending. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed in the state Bank of India and is at present functioning as Junior Management grade Scale-I office. In the year 1986 he received one statement of imputation of lapses in respect of 1984-85, for certain Demand Draft purchase from the respondent Chief General manager, the then disciplinary authority vide Memo, dated 1st July, 1986 and in terms of Rule-50 (4) (1) of the State Bank of India (Supervisory staff) Service Rules and he was asked to submit his written statement or defence within a period of fortnight. 4. With a view to furnish an adequate show-cause he requested the chief General Manager vide his letter dated 29th July, 1986 to allow him to visit Bihta Branch of the State Bank of india for perusal of the relevant records for filing proper show-cause reply (vide anneuxre-4 ). 4. With a view to furnish an adequate show-cause he requested the chief General Manager vide his letter dated 29th July, 1986 to allow him to visit Bihta Branch of the State Bank of india for perusal of the relevant records for filing proper show-cause reply (vide anneuxre-4 ). But he was not allowed, rather he was directed vide letter dated 11th August, 1986 to submit the reply to show-cause without any delay. He again requested vide his letter dated-14th August, 1986 to the disciplinary authority to a permit him to visit Bihta branch to enable him to peruse the relevant records for submitting an effective reply. The Chief General manager vide letter dated 1st September, 1986 asked him as to which papers were required (vide Annexure-5 ). On receipt of that letter he informed the chief General Manager vide letter dated-1oth September, 1986 giving the details of the documents which he wanted to peruse for submitting effective reply to show-cause (vide annexure-6 ). Thereafter, by the letter dated 23rd September, 1986 he was again informed that permission was accorded, but when he contacted the officials of the Branch Manager of the state Bank of India Bihta Branch all the documents which were earlier mentioned in the letter dated 23rd September, 1986 were not shown to him. He again requested the Branch Manager to allow him to go through the documents (vide Annexures-7 and 8 ). Thereafter, when he visited the Bihta Branch of the state Bank of India and went through the certain records relating to the accounts, it was manifest that in certain documents dates of credits were made in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner relating to which the charges were framed by the respondents. He again vide his letter dated 10th November, 1986 wanted to make him available the credit vouchers and the sources of credit (vide Annexure-9 ). While awaiting for favourable reply from the disciplinary authority to permit him to peruse the documents, no intimations as received by him, rather he suddenly received the impugned order dated-4th july, 1987 (Annexure-1 ). Thereafter his appeal met the same fate (vide order dated-31st December, 1987: Annexure-2 ). His Review is however pending. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thereafter his appeal met the same fate (vide order dated-31st December, 1987: Annexure-2 ). His Review is however pending. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the alternative it is submitted that the stoppage of two increments even if operative, is no bar for considering him for promotion to the post of Middle Management Grade scale-II post. He leaned heavily on state Bank of India and ors V/s. B. C. Agrawal, 1993 (1) S. C. C. page-13. 6. Learned counsel for the State bank of India and other respondents refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and urged that the principles of natural justice are not the straight-jacket formula and in the instant case the principles of natural justice has substantially been complied with. He was afforded an opportunity of hearing, as he was the employee of the Bank therefore he knows the details of his own accounts in the Bank. The statement of imputation of lapses vide memo dated 1st July, 1986 (Annexure-3) is in two pages. First page indicates that during the period 1984-85 the petitioner purchased four p. Ds from various branches in Patna. These instruments were drawn from his Savings Bank Account No.5685 at Bihta Branch. He failed to keep sufficient balance in his account for honouring these D. Ds and the next imputation was that the aforesaid D. Ds could have been purchased at Bihta Branch only, the other employees of Branch deposited sufficient funds in his account in order that the D. Ds may be honoured. He therefore borrowed money from a subordinate employee of the Bank and thereby contravened rule 41 (i) of the state Bank of India (Supervising Staff)Service Rules. in the other page it deals with four items of the details of instruments caused to be purchased by him from the various Branches in Patna (Annexure-A ). 7. He therefore borrowed money from a subordinate employee of the Bank and thereby contravened rule 41 (i) of the state Bank of India (Supervising Staff)Service Rules. in the other page it deals with four items of the details of instruments caused to be purchased by him from the various Branches in Patna (Annexure-A ). 7. From the statement of imputation of lapses it appears clearly as to on which date he purchased D. Ds and what was the amount for each purchase and his balance of the account date of payment at Bihta Branch and how the amount could be adjusted when he has no sufficient amount to his credit, in that view of the matter, the details have been given in his account which requires no further perusal. Next submissions was that unless withholding of two increments remained operative the petitioner could not be promoted. 8. Having evaluated the submissions the points for determinations are whether petitioner was entitled to the principles of natural justice, and whether before expiry of period of punishment, can he be promoted. 9. As regards first point, in harbhajan Singh Dhalla V/s. The Union of india reported in 1986 (4) S. C. Cases page 678, it was observed that ; predecisional hearing is must in view of audi Alterant Partem rule by the authority responsible to take first determinative decision which quashed adverse effects the person against whom is made. 10. In Cleveland Board of Education V/s. James Louder Mills, the American supreme Court in 470 US 532 : 84 L. Ed.2nd, 494, held : "as essential principle of due process, is that deprivation of life, liberty, or property by procedure by notice and opportunity of hearing appropriate to the nature of case " (See Mullane V/s. Central Hanover Bank and trust Co. , 339 U. S.306 : 94 L. Ed.865 ). We have described that the root requirement of the due process clauses as being that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property or interest. " [see boddie V/s. Connecticut, 401 U. S.371 : 28 L. Ed.2nd 113]. Apart from the general rules of natural justice, the following statement in Russell V/s. . " [see boddie V/s. Connecticut, 401 U. S.371 : 28 L. Ed.2nd 113]. Apart from the general rules of natural justice, the following statement in Russell V/s. . Duke of Novfolk, (1949) (1) A. N. E. R.109 at 118 (Tucker L. J. as quoted in H. W. R wades Administrative Law (Fifth Edition) (pages 473-74) may be noticed : "an order to preserve flexibility, of principle of Natural Justice, the Courts quote: the requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of enquiry, rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter to be dealt with, and so forth. " 11. The principles of natural justice are not like straight-jacket formula and the same year stick cannot be applied everywhere, it depends on the facts of each and every cases as to what extent the principles of natural justice has to be applied. In the instant case while furnishing the details of charges or the imputation of lapses (Annexure-3) there was another paper annexed to it (Annexure-A) which indicates in detail as to how the petitioner caused the D. Ds purchase from the various branches of Patna, and further the details of account, its balance and the withdrawal pertaining to the account of the petitioner himself. The petitioner is the responsible employee/ officer of the bank and therefore, he was well within the knowledge of the procedure of withdrawal. 12. In Kamataka Public Service commission and others V/s. B. M. Vijoy shankar and others reported in Judgment Today 1992 (4) S. C. C.348, Hon ble R. N. Sahai, J. , ruled that the principles of natural justice cannot be construed rigidly. The conduct of examination by the Public Service Commission is very important in all over the country and the public interest requires no compromise on it. The absence of hearing in such matters was not necessary whenever any action was taken or order was passed against a candidate. In such a situation it was meaningless to afford an opportunity of hearing. 13. In the instant case also, as stated above, the petitioner has been granted sufficient opportunity and there was a direction of perusal of documents which was with a view to avoid any delay in the disciplinary proceeding. He was not entitled to full-hedged opportunity and at the same time sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. 13. In the instant case also, as stated above, the petitioner has been granted sufficient opportunity and there was a direction of perusal of documents which was with a view to avoid any delay in the disciplinary proceeding. He was not entitled to full-hedged opportunity and at the same time sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. In our opinion, under the present circumstances, audi alterant partem, rule of natural justice are not attracted as a rigid rule, or it cannot be deemed to be a straight-jacket formula, the petitioners request for showing certain document was correctly turned down. 14. The next question is that as to whether the promotion to the post of middle Management Grade Scale-II could be allowed to the petitioner even during pendency of the order of punishment, i. e. stoppage of two increments still vogue was a case covered by a decision of the Apex Court in a case of Tamil Nadu V/s. Thini, reported in 1995 (4) S. C. C.307, where it was held that the promotion to the higher post could not be given during the period of stoppage of two increments which remains still vogue. The answer to the questions posed are : (1) No doubt the petitioner was entitled to a notice and hearing, but keeping in view the entire facts it is eminently just that as he was permitted to inspect the record, he need not be heard. As the punishment of stoppage of two increments remained in vogue therefore, the petitioners claim for promotion is not justified. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions we do not find any merit in this application and the same is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.