IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2318 of 2008. Reserved on: 10.3.2009. Decided on: 16.3.2009. __________________________________________________ Shri Vishwa Jit Mukerji … Petitioner. Versus HPSFC and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. N.S. Shandil, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of office order dated 27.6.1994. The precise case of the petitioner is that though he has taken a loan of Rs. 5,000/- from Shri Anil Bhanot yet the same was returned to him. The case of the respondent-Corporation is that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was withdrawn by Shri Anil Bhanot from Corporation funds and handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner had issued receipt for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner has made a representation against order dated 27.6.1994. The same was rejected on 16.9.1994. Mr. N.S. Shandil has strenuously argued that his client has taken loan from Shri Anil Bhanot in his private capacity. He then contended that a sum of Rs. 5000/- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 was not withdrawn from the funds of the Corporation. He lastly contended that his client had returned the money to Shri Anil Bhanot. Ms. Ranjana Parmar has argued that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid by Shri Anil Bhanot from the Corporation funds and the same was not returned by the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. The petitioner has admitted taking loan from Shri Anil Bhanot as is evident from his statement Annexure- A4. However, according to him, the amount was returned to Shri Anil Bhanot on the very next working day but Shri Anil Bhanot did not return his receipt. It is evident from the reply filed by the respondent-Corporation that the receipt was found in the chest of the respondent- Corporation. The money was withdrawn as per the reply from the office credit. The petitioner has failed to prove by leading any tangible evidence that he had returned the money to Shri Anil Bhanot. The funds of Corporation cannot be permitted to be misutilised as has happened in the present case. It was the duty cast upon the petitioner to ensure that the money which he has taken from Shri Anil Bhanot after its withdrawal from the Corporation funds was duly repaid. There is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. He has 3 submitted representation on 22.8.1994. The same was considered and rejected. The petitioner throughout knew the case set up by the Corporation against him. His statement was recorded with other witnesses. In these circumstances, since the petitioner had admitted taking loan from Shri Anil Bhanot but failed to prove its refund, there was no requirement to furnish him with a copy of the inquiry report. The principles of natural justice cannot be confined and cabined in any straitjacket formula. Its applicability is flexible and has to be applied taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case there is sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the plaintiff has admitted taking loan from late Shri Bhanot. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 16, 2009. (cr)