1. Employee dismissed for obtaining transfer via fake order — Challenge to dismissal based on natural justice and statutory rule violations under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. (Para 1 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 881
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
S. Janaki Iyer – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.10858 Of 2024 (@ SLP (C) No. 29718 Of 2018)
Decided On : 20-05-2025
Important Points
Procedural integrity and adherence to natural justice in disciplinary inquiries allow dismissal when misconduct, evidenced by preponderance of probability, is established without causing prejudice to the employee.
Subject
Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL RULES: R.15(2)
Headnote
(A) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Violation of principles of natural justice - Allegation of dismissal on grounds of fake transfer order - The Appellant contended that inquiry report was not supplied, and chargesheet was vague; however, inquiry established her knowledge of transfer's illegitimacy, satisfying requirements for due process. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 20, 28)
(B) Evidence - Standard of proof in departmental proceedings - Preponderance of probability established misconduct, contrasting the higher standard required in criminal matters. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant contested dismissal based on vague charges and violation of natural justice procedures over alleged involvement in a fake transfer order. Dismissal was affirmed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court.
Findings of Court:
Court upheld the procedural integrity of the inquiry, noting no prejudice was suffered by the Appellant from non-supply of all documents, and disciplinary proceedings were justified based on substantial evidence.
Issues: Whether the principles of natural justice were adhered to during the inquiry and whether there was sufficient evidence for the alleged misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principles of natural justice were adhered to, and the procedural requirements of the CCS (CCA) Rules were followed. There was no demonstrated prejudice against the Appellant despite her claims.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Evidence - Standard of proof in departmental proceedings - Preponderance of probability established misconduct, contrasting the higher standard required in criminal matters. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant contested dismissal based on vague charges and violation of natural justice procedures over alleged involvement in a fake transfer order. Dismissal was affirmed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court.
Findings of Court:
Court upheld the procedural integrity of the inquiry, noting no prejudice was suffered by the Appellant from non-supply of all documents, and disciplinary proceedings were justified based on substantial evidence.
Issues: Whether the principles of natural justice were adhered to during the inquiry and whether there was sufficient evidence for the alleged misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principles of natural justice were adhered to, and the procedural requirements of the CCS (CCA) Rules were followed. There was no demonstrated prejudice against the Appellant despite her claims.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The standard of proof in departmental proceedings is preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt. (!) - The principles of natural justice require hearing, lack of bias, and reasoned decision; non-supply of certain documents (e.g., Preliminary Inquiry Report) did not prejudice the appellant under the specific facts. (!) (!) (!) - The disciplinary process complied with Rule 15(2) CCS (CCA) Rules, including forwarding the inquiry report and providing an opportunity for representation; the appellant was the sole beneficiary of the fake transfer order. (!) (!) (!) - The transfer order dated 01.10.1991 was found fake, with admissible evidence including denial of signature by the author, establishing misconduct by preponderance of probability. (!) (!) - The appellate court upheld the CAT and High Court decisions, affirming dismissal of the appeal and absence of prejudice or violation of statutory rules. (!) (!) (!)
What is the standard of proof required in departmental inquiries and whether a preponderance of probability suffices?
What are the considerations and requirements for adherence to natural justice in CCS (CCA) Rules disciplinary proceedings, including the supply of inquiry reports and documents?
What is the court's ruling on the validity of the fake transfer order and the appellant's involvement in its procurement, and the consequent dismissal of the appeal?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Manjula Rao, Sr. Adv. Mrs. V. D. Khanna, AOR Mr. Upmanyu Tewari, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Gaurav Adusumalli, Adv. Mr. Jay Nirupam, Adv. Mr. D. Girish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pranav Giri, Adv. Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Manjula Rao, Sr. Adv. Mrs. V. D. Khanna, AOR Mr. Upmanyu Tewari, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Gaurav Adusumalli, Adv. Mr. Jay Nirupam, Adv. Mr. D. Girish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pranav Giri, Adv. Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Violation of natural justice due to non-supply of preliminary report — Vague chargesheet — Inordinate inquiry delay — Non-compliance with Rule 15(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 17 )
3. Chargesheet was specific — Non-supply of preliminary report caused no prejudice — Delay was justified — Rule 15(2) complied with — Standard of proof is preponderance of probability. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
4. Procedural irregularities in departmental inquiries do not vitiate proceedings unless grave prejudice is established — Standard of proof in disciplinary matters is preponderance of probability. (Para 21 , 24 , 26 , 29 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Impugned orders upholding dismissal from service sustained. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 )
6. Does the non-supply of a preliminary inquiry report automatically vitiate departmental proceedings?
No. Violation of natural justice cannot be based on technical infringements unless grave prejudice is established. If the report was not the basis for the final conclusion and no prejudice is proven, the proceedings are not vitiated. (Para 19 , 21 , 24 )
7. Does inordinate delay in concluding departmental inquiry proceedings justify setting aside the punishment?
Not if the delay is explained and no prejudice is caused to the delinquent employee. Unexplained delay may be a ground for interference only if it is coupled with established prejudice. (Para 25 , 26 )
8. What is the required standard of proof in departmental disciplinary proceedings compared to criminal trials?
Departmental proceedings operate on the touchstone of preponderance of probability to establish misconduct, whereas criminal matters require proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 6 , 29 )
9. What is the requirement under Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, when a disciplinary authority disagrees with an inquiry report?
The disciplinary authority must forward the inquiry report along with its own tentative reasons for disagreement to the government servant, allowing them to submit a written representation. (Para 27 , 28 )
JUDGMENT :
(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.
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 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 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.
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
