As per case facts, the appellant challenged her dismissal from service, which followed a disciplinary inquiry for allegedly obtaining a transfer under a fake order. She contended that the disciplinary ... proceedings violated natural justice due to non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report, vagueness of the chargesheet, inordinate delay of nine years in the inquiry, non-supply of certain documents, and improper application of Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The question arose whether the non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report and other claimed procedural lapses amounted to a violation of natural justice, warranting the setting aside of the dismissal order. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the chargesheet was clear and specific, and as the preliminary inquiry report was not the basis for the final conclusion, its non-supply caused no demonstrable prejudice to the appellant. The Court noted that mere technical infringement or delay, if adequately explained and without proven prejudice, does not vitiate the proceedings. It found sufficient evidence (the alleged author denying his signature) to establish the transfer order was fake, and since the appellant was the sole beneficiary, the finding of guilt was justified. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment.