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.

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