Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court recently held that disciplinary proceedings cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice due to the non-supply of a particular document, unless it is shown that grave prejudice was caused to the employee.

In this case, the employee challenged the dismissal on the ground of non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report. The Court rejected the contention noting that no grave prejudice was shown to have been caused.

The Court bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice AG Masih was hearing a challenge against the Bombay High Court, which upheld the dismissal of the appellant who was a Hindi-trained graduate teacher at Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan.

The Appellant was transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bangalore to Mumbai via an order dated 01.10.1991, signed by Assistant Commissioner V.K. Jain, involving 12 teachers. She joined the Mumbai school provisionally on 24.10.1991 after the Principal initially withheld approval due to non-receipt of the order.

Noticing a subject mismatch in the order, she requested a correction but received no response; instead, she was suspended on 13.07.1992, and later charged sheeted on 10.02.1993 for allegedly securing the transfer through a fake order.

The reason for the dismissal of the appellant was (1) the fact that the said transfer order dated 01.10.1994 was fake; (2) the Appellant was the sole beneficiary of the said order and except for her no other employee had obtained any undue benefit out of the said order as all the other eleven teachers had been transferred by various other separate orders.

An appeal was filed against the dismissal order, which was rejected, and the dismissal order was upheld. This led to the institution of an Original Application before the CAT at Mumbai in the year 2002, which was decided vide order dated 29.09.2004 dismissing the same, upholding the order of dismissal. The Review Petition preferred by the Appellant was also dismissed on 23.02.200,5 leading to the filing of the writ petition before the High Court of Bombay, which also ended up in dismissal vide the impugned order dated 24.07.2018.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant has challenged the impugned orders primarily on the grounds of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice.

(1) On the issue of vagueness of the chargesheet, the Court observed that the chargesheet's language clearly and specifically stated the charges levied against her. It was observed :

"The charge against the Appellant was that she managed to get herself transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bangalore to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bombay under a fake transfer order. In this respect, the language of the said chargesheet in our view is very clear and specific. A common man on going through the same, would understand as to what were the charges which an employee was called upon to face and defend."

"It is further apparent and is made clear from the fact in unambiguous terms that she was the sole beneficiary of the said transfer order. The plea therefore with regard to the vagueness of the chargesheet cannot be sustained. "

(2) On the issue of non-supply of the copy of the Preliminary Inquiry Report, the Court held that it is an admitted fact that after the prelimiary inquiry, chargesheet was issued to the Appellant and thereafter a regular Departmental Inquiry was held where both the parties had led their respective evidence and on that basis the Inquiry Officer has returned his findings.

Grounds Of Violation Of Natural Justice Can Be Taken Only If 'Grave Prejudice' Has Been Established Due To Technical Infringements

The Court explained that the non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report in the present case would not amount to a violation of principles of natural justice unless it is proven that grave prejudice was caused due to the non-supply of the report.

It observed that "Nothing has also come on record which would indicate that the Appellant had ever sought for the Preliminary Inquiry Report after the issuance of the chargesheet. Similar would be the position with regard to the other documents also which are alleged to have not been supplied to her as the nature and extent of disadvantage or handicap caused or suffered by the Appellant, in the absence of the documents, is missing in the departmental proceedings or the pleadings."

It further held that "no grounds have been laid down indicating the prejudice which has been caused to her either during the inquiry or at the stage of projecting her response to the show cause notice given by the disciplinary authority."

The Court explained there are 3 Principles of Natural Justice : (1) the Hearing Rule (Audi Alteram Partem) which mandates that no person should be judged without being given a fair opportunity to present his case. (2) the Bias Rule (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua) which asserts that no one should act as a judge in its own case, thereby safeguarding impartiality and preventing any form of bias and (3) the principle of Reasoned Decision, also known as Speaking Orders, requires every decision to be supported by valid and clearly stated reasons to promote transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.

The Court analysed that in instances of technical shortcomings like non-suppy of preliminary inquiry report can only be considered as a violation of principles of natural justice if it is shown that due to such non-supply the appellant suffered from grave prejudice.

It held: " As a matter of principle, violation of the principles of justice cannot be on the touchstone of technical infringement made the basis of setting aside the action taken by the authority against an employee unless it is established that grave prejudice has been caused to an employee because of non-supply of a particular document."

Is The Court Bound To Accept Assertions By a Delinquent Employee & Doubt The Inquiry Procedure?

The Court held that assertions on violation of principle of natural justice by a delinquent employee are not necessarily binding on the court.

It reasoned that on the basis of such assertions alone, the sancitity of the disciplinary proceedings cannot be questioned till the time a prejudice is established.

"The Court is not bound to simply accept an assertion of a delinquent employee and proceed to question the disciplinary proceedings without being satisfied with regard to any prejudice having been caused to the employee."

In holding so, it placed reliance upon the decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others vs. B. Karunakar and Others.

The bench noted that in B Karunakar's Case, the Court categorically held that "these principles are not to be invoked as mere procedural sacred words that have magical effect when said on every occasion, irrespective of context. The Court underscored the aspect as to whether prejudice has in fact been occasioned to an employee by the non-supply of the inquiry report which must be assessed with reference to the specific facts and circumstances of each case."

The Court analysed that in B Karunakar, the Cosntitution Bench held that allowing reinstatement of service purely on technical shortcomings like non-supply of report would lead to injustice if it found that the employee would still be liable of misconduct in a scenario where such document or report was supplied to him. It was observed :

"Upon such assessment, if it is evident that no different outcome would have emerged even after the inquiry report or documents had been furnished, to reinstate the employee and grant him consequential benefits in such situation would amount to a distortion of justice. In other words, it would amount to conferring a premium upon misconduct and to stretch the doctrine of natural justice to an illogical and unwarranted extent. Such an expansive and indiscriminate application of the principle would, paradoxically, undermine the very concept of justice it seeks to uphold."

Following the above principles, the Court also rejected the contention over the 9-year period taken for completion of the inquiry. It noted that the 9 years taken were justified considering the the inquiry took place at different places on different occasions . The appellant was also providing adequate subsistence allowances during the inquiry proceedings.

It added that dealy in conclusion of inquiry proceedings can be considered as unreasonable when it leads to tampering and causing prejudice to the employee's case.

"Inordinate or unexplained delay in the departmental proceedings may be a justifiable ground if tampered with prejudice having been established to have been caused to the delinquent employee in the said process for interference by the Court. In the present case, the same is absent and therefore the said plea of delay fails."

The Court also observed that the disciplinary authority, while disagreeing with the inquiry officer's findings, followed due procedure by sharing its reasons and seeking the employee's response. The inquiry report clearly concludes that the transfer order was fake and the charges against the Appellant were proven. The Appellant's claim is unsustainable, as she was the sole beneficiary and no evidence suggests she was exonerated.

The Court also rejected the claim that the transfer order was valid and upheld the finding that it was fake, after relying on the statement of the person who allegedly issued the order that he never signed or issued any such order.

The Court dismissed the appeal and held that no principles of natural justice have been violated in the present case of the appellant's dismissal.

Case Details : S. JANAKI IYER v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.| CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 655

Click here to read the judgment