2025 INSC 742 CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 1 of 22

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024

(@ SLP (C) No. 29718 of 2018)

S. JANAKI IYER … APPELLANT

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated

24.07.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay

High Court upholding the judgment and order dated

29.09.2004 and 23.02.2005 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”) in the original

application and the review petition respectively, whereby

the order of dismissal from service of the Appellant was

sustained.

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 2 of 22

2. The primary ground taken for challenge to the Order of

the Tribunal as well as the High Court is that Courts

failed to appreciate the violation of the principles of

natural justice, which were not allegedly adhered to by

the Respondents due to the non-supply of the

preliminary Inquiry Report, where prima facie the

Appellant was found to have violated the rules governing

the service i.e. The Central Civil Services (Classification,

Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [“CCS (CCA) Rules,

1965”].

3. The other ground which has been taken is that the

chargesheet as served upon the Appellant is vague,

which has prejudiced and adversely affected her defence.

4. The next ground which has been pressed into service is

the inordinate delay of nine years during which the

inquiry proceedings continued. Not only this, certain

documents which were sought by the Appellant were

also not provided to her. Yet, another plea which has

been taken is that the disciplinary authority although

had returned a finding that the transfer order on the

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 3 of 22

basis of which the Appellant was transferred from

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bangalore to Kendriya Vidyalaya,

Mumbai was a fake order, but no findings were returned

that the Appellant was in any manner involved in the

issuance of the same.

5. Yet, another plea which has been taken is that the

disciplinary authority, despite there being no findings

against the Appellant in the Inquiry Report as

submitted, proceeded to hold the Appellant guilty of the

charge merely because she was the beneficiary of the

said order and that too without any evidence

establishing her connection with procurement of the

said transfer order. The violation of the statutory rules,

specially Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 stands

established as this mandatory provision was not

complied with. On this basis, prayer has been made for

accepting the appeal by setting aside the impugned

judgments and the order of dismissal.

6. On the other hand, the Respondents have supported the

judgments impugned as well as the order of dismissal by

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 4 of 22

asserting that the principles of natural justice and

statutory rules were duly complied with as there being

no prejudice caused to the Appellant. The grounds which

have been pressed into service in the present appeal,

according to Respondents, would not lead to a situation

where the impugned orders could be set aside. They

have also asserted that the evidence, both documentary

and oral, proves the charges against the Appellant. The

principle which has been pressed into service is with

regard to the standard of proof, where a preponderance

of probability would operate to establish misconduct

during the disciplinary proceedings vis-à-vis the proof

beyond doubt as in criminal matters. That burden

having been discharged, the findings as returned by the

Inquiry Officer and thereafter by the disciplinary

authority, passes the test as has been laid down in the

various judgments of this Court as also the mandate of

the Statute. Prayer has thus been made for upholding

the impugned orders and dismissal of the appeal.

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 5 of 22

7. Having considered the submissions made by the

Counsel for the Appellant as well as the Counsel for the

Respondents, we proceed to decide the present appeal.

8. Facts in brief, which are essential for adjudication of the

present matter, are that the Appellant was appointed as

a Hindi trained graduate teacher on probation at

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan at Bangalore with effect

from 11.01.1989, and as a permanent teacher from

16.04.1992. As her husband was working in Mumbai,

she sought her transfer from Bangalore to Mumbai or

Pune. A transfer order is alleged to have been served on

her dated 01.10.1991 wherein she was transferred from

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Bangalore to Kendriya

Vidyalaya, Mumbai. The said transfer order pertains to

twelve teachers which was issued and signed by Mr. VK

Jain, Assistant Commissioner (Headquarters) K.V.

Sanghathan, New Delhi. In pursuance to the said

transfer order, Appellant was relieved on 14.10.1991

and she reported at Mumbai on 18.10.1991. As the said

transfer order had not been received by the Principal at

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 6 of 22

Mumbai, she was asked to wait for some time.

Ultimately, she was permitted to join on 24.10.1991

provisionally with an undertaking to the effect that she

would report back at Bangalore in case the transfer

order was reversed or cancelled.

9. The Appellant found a discrepancy in her transfer order,

where she was mentioned as a teacher of Social Studies,

whereas she was in fact a Hindi teacher. Accordingly, a

letter was sent by her to the Headquarters at New Delhi

seeking correction in the transfer order. No response

thereto was received, instead an order dated 13.07.1992

was served upon the Appellant placing her under

suspension pending disciplinary inquiry.

10. A chargesheet dated 10.02.1993 was issued and served

upon her, alleging that the Appellant had managed to

get herself transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya,

Bangalore to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bombay under a fake

transfer order.

11. Reply to the chargesheet was filed by the Appellant on

25.06.1993 where the said allegations were denied. The

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 7 of 22

reply was found not satisfactory leading to initiation of

disciplinary inquiry. The Inquiry proceedings thereafter

proceeded as per the CCS (CCA), Rules 1965. The said

proceedings continued for almost 9 years. A

representation was submitted by the Appellant for

revocation of the order of suspension after having

exceeded the period as has been provided for under the

CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The said suspension order was

eventually revoked and the Appellant was directed to

join at Baran, Jodhpur vide letter dated 26.03.2001. The

Appellant insisted upon a formal transfer order to

Jodhpur before proceeding and as is apparent, she never

joined in Jodhpur. The fact remains that the

departmental proceedings continued, and she was being

paid her subsistence allowance regularly as per the

Rules.

12. The disciplinary proceedings concluded, and a

communication dated 30.03.2001 was received by the

Appellant from the disciplinary authority indicating that

the proceedings have concluded on 30.03.2001 and the

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 8 of 22

findings were to the effect that the transfer order dated

01.10.1991 was fake, and since the Appellant, being the

sole beneficiary of the transfer order why should the

further proceedings be not held against her and suitable

punishment be not imposed specially when all other

eleven teachers mentioned in the said transfer order had

been transferred under different orders which were

found to be genuine. The disciplinary authority,

therefore has prima facie opined that the charges levelled

against the Appellant stood true. The Appellant was

called upon to put forth a response to the Inquiry report

which was duly supplied along with the said

communication dated 30.03.2001.

13. The Appellant submitted a detailed representation

dated 09.04.2001 disputing and challenging the findings

of the Inquiry Officer that the transfer qua Appellant was

fake whereas that of the others were genuine. The aspect

with regard to the other findings was also challenged,

taking the plea of non-compliance of the statutory rules

as also the aspect of the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 9 of 22

Officer not connecting her with the procurement of the

said transfer order which was alleged to be fake. The said

representation was duly considered by the disciplinary

authority but was not accepted rather the disciplinary

authority proceeded to hold the Appellant guilty of the

charges which she was called upon to face in the

Departmental Inquiry and passed the punishment of

dismissal from service vide order dated 16.11.2001.

14. The reason assigned in the said order of dismissal, apart

from the fact that the said transfer order dated

01.10.1994 was fake, for coming to the conclusion with

regard to the charge having been proved against the

Appellant was that 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.

15. Against this order of dismissal, the Appellant preferred

a statutory appeal which was considered by the

appellate authority and after affording personal hearing

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 10 of 22

to the Appellant proceeded to reject the same vide order

dated 11.02.2002.

16. 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 23.02.2005 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.

17. The present appeal is the outcome of the challenge to the

said orders, judgments of the CAT and the High Court.

The challenge primarily is based upon the basic

principle of non-compliance of the principles of natural

justice. To press for the said assertion the first plea

which has been taken is the vagueness of the

chargesheet.

18. A perusal of the chargesheet dated 10.02.1993 would

show that not only did it contain the charges against the

Appellant but the same was supported by documents as

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 11 of 22

well. 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. The

consequence thereof was obviously that she was the

beneficiary of a fake transfer order. 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.

19. The aspect with regard to non-supply of the copy of the

Preliminary Inquiry Report again would not hold for long

for the simple reason that it was never made the basis

for coming to a conclusion in the regular Departmental

Inquiry with regard to the guilt of the Appellant. It is an

admitted fact that after the preliminary Inquiry,

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 12 of 22

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.

20. The principles of natural justice are founded on three

fundamental rules that ensure fairness in legal and

administrative proceedings. Firstly, the Hearing Rule

(Audi Alteram Partem) which mandates that no person

should be judged without being given a fair opportunity

to present his case. Secondly, 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. Lastly, 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.

21. No prejudice having been caused because of the non-

supply of the preliminary Inquiry Report to the

Appellant, the plea of violation of the principles of

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 13 of 22

natural justice would not be available to the Appellant.

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. 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.

22. 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. Mere

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 14 of 22

assertion that some documents have not been supplied

or even mentioning the said documents would not be

enough unless the consequential prejudice which would

or has been caused to a delinquent employee is put

forth.

23. 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.

24. The position in law on this aspect as has been culled out

by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the

case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others vs.

B. Karunakar and Others

1

followed and explained

thereafter by this Court expounded the doctrines of

reasonable opportunity and natural justice to have been

conceived and evolved not as a mechanical or a

ritualistic formality, but as substantive principles

intended to safeguard the rule of law and to facilitate the

1

(1993) 4 SCC 727

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 15 of 22

assertion of legitimate rights by individuals. It was

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. 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.

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 16 of 22

25. Similar is the position with regard to the plea of

prolongation of the Inquiry for 9 years in concluding the

same. The explanation as has been given by the

Respondents with regard to the time consumed during

the inquiry is fully justified as it had to be and actually

was held at different places on different occasions as the

matter related to different stations pertaining to the

transfer orders of eleven teachers which were in

question. The availability of the relevant documents and

other aspects including the witnesses so posted etc. at

different stations is also taken as a ground in

explanation. It is not the case of the Appellant that she

was not provided with appropriate subsistence

allowances or facilities for attending the Inquiry

proceedings which would have in any manner caused

hindrance or difficulty to participate in or attend the

same.

26. Mere delay during the inquiry proceedings, when it is

explained with regard to the time taken for the inquiry

to conclude and that too justifying the same with no

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 17 of 22

prejudice having been caused, cannot be made the basis

for vitiating the departmental proceedings. 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.

27. The other ground which has been pressed into service is

with regard to non-compliance of the statutory rules in

the departmental proceedings which were held against

the Appellant. Specific reference has been made to Rule

15(2), CCS (CCS) Rules, 1965 which reads as follows:

“The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to

be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if

any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the

disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority,

a copy of the report of the inquiring authority

together with its own tentative reasons for

disagreement, if any, with the findings of inquiring

authority on any article of charge to the Government

servant who shall be required to submit, if he so

desires, his written representation or submission to

the disciplinary authority within fifteen days,

irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not

to the Government servant.”

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 18 of 22

28. A perusal of the above rule would show that in case the

disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings

returned by the inquiry authority, it would, along with

the inquiry report forward its own tentative reasons for

disagreement with the findings of the inquiry authority

calling upon the delinquent employee to submit his

representation/response to the disciplinary authority.

The said procedure has been duly complied with and

followed in the present case. The perusal of the inquiry

report indicates that not only has the inquiring authority

come to a definite conclusion that the transfer order was

fake but has also concluded that the charges have been

proved against her meaning thereby that she had

managed to get herself transferred. Merely because the

person through whom she has been able to procure or

manage to secure the fake transfer order has not come

in the findings of the Inquiry Officer would not lead to

exoneration of the Appellant. There is nothing on record

which would indicate that the Inquiry Officer had given

a clean chit to the Appellant. It is also apparent from the

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 19 of 22

records that the Appellant is the sole beneficiary of the

said transfer order. It has come on record and in the

Departmental Inquiry as well that eleven other teachers

whose names find mention in the transfer order in

question dated 01.10.1991 had been transferred by

different earlier orders and their transfer orders were not

dependent solely or relatable to the order in issue. The

plea thus of the Appellant on this count is also

unsustainable.

29. As regards the submission that the findings as recorded

by the Inquiry Officer with regard to the transfer order

being fake are based on no evidence which could have

been the only ground on which interference by the Court

would be permissible also falls flat with an answer to the

questionnaire served upon Shri VK Jain, the Assistant

Commissioner in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan

(Headquarters), New Delhi who is said to be the person

under whose signatures the order dated 01.10.1991 was

passed, when he had responded that the signatures on

the alleged order dated 01.10.1991 had not been signed

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 20 of 22

by him and it was not his signature. The said transfer

order was fake which assertion when put to test in the

cross-examination in the departmental inquiry has not

been shaken where again the said fact has been

reiterated. When the alleged author himself denying the

said signatures on the document and has gone to the

extent of saying that he had not issued the said order,

the requirements of the statutory rules in a

departmental inquiry stand fulfilled. What has been

stated above is that these are not criminal proceedings

but departmental proceedings where the test with regard

to the proof on the basis of evidence is different. The

preponderance and probability being the touchstone in

the departmental proceedings the same having been

fulfilled, the plea as has been sought to be raised by the

Appellant cannot sustain.

30. Another argument which has been raised by the

Appellant is that the transfer order dated 01.10.1991,

which had been issued with an intention to benefit Ms.

Sandhya Jain in place of the Appellant at Mumbai at the

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 21 of 22

behest of Assistant Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya

Sanghathan, Bombay Region Mr. RK Jain appointed the

daughter of Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya

Vidyalaya Sanghathan (Headquarters), New Delhi. The

Appellant argued that this action was actuated by mala

fides and driven by an oblique motive, and therefore, the

transfer order was arbitrary and not in accordance with

law.

31. The said plea was neither taken before the CAT nor

pleaded in the writ petition. The same, when pressed

into service orally, was rejected by the High Court on the

ground of non-pleading of the same as also non-

impleadment of the parties against whom mala fide were

being pressed into service. For the same reason before

this Court the said plea, although having been sought to

be projected, cannot be permitted. It would not be out of

way to mention that here again in this appeal, the said

persons are not parties.

32. In view of the above, there has been no violation of any

statutory rules nor has there been violation of principles

CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 Page 22 of 22

of natural justice with their being ample evidence to

establish with regard to the transfer order dated

01.10.1991 being fake which fulfilled the requirements

as have been laid down in the statutory rules as well as

the law finalized by this Court. The Impugned Orders

being in accordance with law do not call for any

interference.

33. The appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

34. There shall be no orders as to cost.

35. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

……...……….……………………..J.

[ ABHAY S. OKA ]

……..………..……………………..J.

[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]

NEW DELHI;

MAY 20, 2025