The Supreme Court held that natural justice violations must cause actual prejudice to invalidate disciplinary proceedings. Technical non-compliance with procedural rules doesn’t automatically vitiate departmental action. Courts assess whether different outcomes would emerge if procedures were followed. Preponderance of probability standard applies in disciplinary cases, not criminal proof standards.
Facts Of The Case:
S. Janaki Iyer was appointed as a Hindi trained graduate teacher at Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan, Bangalore on probation from January 11, 1989, and became permanent from April 16, 1992. Since her husband worked in Mumbai, she sought transfer from Bangalore to Mumbai or Pune. A transfer order dated October 1, 1991, allegedly signed by VK Jain, Assistant Commissioner (Headquarters) K.V. Sanghathan, New Delhi, transferred her from Bangalore to Mumbai along with eleven other teachers. She was relieved on October 14, 1991, and joined Mumbai on October 24, 1991, provisionally with an undertaking to return if the order was cancelled. Upon discovering a discrepancy in her transfer order (mentioned as Social Studies teacher instead of Hindi teacher), she sought correction from headquarters. Instead of receiving a response, she was placed under suspension on July 13, 1992, pending disciplinary inquiry. A chargesheet dated February 10, 1993, alleged she managed to secure transfer under a fake order. After her reply was deemed unsatisfactory, disciplinary proceedings continued for nine years. The inquiry concluded that the transfer order was fake, with VK Jain denying his signature. While other eleven teachers had genuine separate transfer orders, the appellant was the sole beneficiary of the fraudulent order, leading to her dismissal on November 16, 2001.
Procedural History:
Following the disciplinary inquiry that concluded on March 30, 2001, the disciplinary authority found the transfer order fake and held the appellant guilty, imposing dismissal from service on November 16, 2001. The appellant filed a statutory appeal which was considered by the appellate authority after affording personal hearing, but was rejected on February 11, 2002. Subsequently, the appellant instituted an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at Mumbai in 2002, challenging the dismissal order. The CAT dismissed the application on September 29, 2004, upholding the dismissal order. The appellant then filed a Review Petition before the CAT, which was also dismissed on February 23, 2005. Following these rejections, the appellant approached the Bombay High Court by filing a writ petition. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition on July 24, 2018, upholding both the CAT’s original order dated September 29, 2004, and the review order dated February 23, 2005. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s judgment, the appellant filed the present Civil Appeal No. 10858 of 2024 (originally SLP (C) No. 29718 of 2018) before the Supreme Court of India, challenging all the lower forums’ decisions that sustained her dismissal from service.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court Quashes Bank’s Charge Sheet: Failure to Seek CVC Advice Ruled Illegal
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the chargesheet was neither vague nor ambiguous, as it clearly specified that the appellant managed to secure transfer under a fake order, making her the sole beneficiary of the fraudulent document. The Court noted that principles of natural justice are founded on three fundamental rules: the Hearing Rule (Audi Alteram Partem), the Bias Rule (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua), and the principle of Reasoned Decision requiring speaking orders. Significantly, the Court emphasized that natural justice principles are not mechanical or ritualistic formalities but substantive principles intended to safeguard the rule of law and facilitate assertion of legitimate rights. The Court observed that these principles cannot be invoked as mere procedural sacred words with magical effect, irrespective of context, and violation of natural justice must be assessed based on actual prejudice caused to the employee. Regarding the nine-year delay in inquiry proceedings, the Court observed that the explanation provided by respondents was justified, as the inquiry had to be conducted at different places involving eleven teachers from various stations, requiring availability of relevant documents and witnesses. The Court noted that mere delay, when explained and causing no prejudice, cannot vitiate departmental proceedings. On the question of evidence, the Court observed that VK Jain, the alleged signatory of the transfer order, categorically denied signing the document and stated he never issued such order. The Court emphasized that departmental proceedings operate on preponderance of probability standard, not criminal proof beyond doubt, and this standard was adequately fulfilled in the present case.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the dismissal order passed against the appellant. The Court concluded that there was no violation of statutory rules under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, nor any breach of principles of natural justice that caused actual prejudice to the appellant. The Court held that ample evidence existed to establish that the transfer order dated October 1, 1991, was fake, which fulfilled the requirements laid down in statutory rules and established legal precedents. The judgment emphasized that the impugned orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Bombay High Court were in accordance with law and did not warrant any judicial interference. The Court specifically rejected the appellant’s contentions regarding vagueness of chargesheet, non-supply of preliminary inquiry report, inordinate delay in proceedings, and non-compliance with Rule 15(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Court found that the disciplinary authority had properly followed the prescribed procedure and that the appellant was indeed the sole beneficiary of the fraudulent transfer order while other eleven teachers mentioned in the same order had legitimate separate transfer orders. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no orders as to costs, and all pending applications were disposed of. The judgment was delivered by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih on May 20, 2025.
Case Details:
Case Title: S. JANAKI IYER vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Citation: 2025 INSC 742 Civil Appeal No: 10858 OF 2024 (@ SLP (C) No. 29718 of 2018) Date of Judgment: May 20, 2025 Judges/Justice Names: Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Augustine George Masih
Download The Judgement Here