Yes, this principle is affirmed in the document.

In disciplinary proceedings governed by procedural rules like Rule 55-A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (as amended by U.P. Government), the requirement to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent is mandatory but procedural in nature. Non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the enquiry, punishment order, or dismissal unless the delinquent demonstrates actual prejudice, such as inability to submit an effective show-cause reply.[1000057010009][1000057010010][1000057010011][1000057010012][1000057010013][1000057010022][1000057010023]

The document emphasizes that procedural irregularities are assessed on the touchstone of prejudice or substantial compliance, akin to provisions in general laws where errors, omissions, or irregularities do not vitiate proceedings without failure of justice or unfair hearing.[1000057010012][1000057010013] (!) (!) (!) Courts/Tribunals must examine if non-supply affected the outcome; absent prejudice, the order stands. (!) (!) In the facts here, no prejudice was shown, as the delinquent filed a show-cause reply without complaint over the report's absence.[1000057010023]