20 May 2025 Disciplinary Proceedings >> Workplace/ Professional Related  

In a recent verdict of S. Janaki Iyer v/s Union of India & Others, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal by a Kendriya Vidyalaya teacher challenging her dismissal from service. The Court upheld the judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Bombay High Court, affirming that principles of natural justice were not violated and there was sufficient evidence to prove the charges against the appellant, primarily concerning the use of a fake transfer order.

Case Background:

The appellant, appointed as a Hindi teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bangalore, in 1989, sought a transfer to Mumbai due to her husband's posting. She subsequently presented a transfer order dated October 1, 1991, purportedly issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Headquarters), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, transferring her to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mumbai. She was provisionally allowed to join in Mumbai.

However, discrepancies in the order, including a wrong subject mention (Social Studies instead of Hindi), raised suspicions. An inquiry revealed the transfer order to be fake. Consequently, the appellant was suspended in July 1992, and a chargesheet was issued in February 1993, alleging that she had managed to procure a fake transfer order.

Disciplinary Proceedings and Appeals:

The disciplinary inquiry lasted nearly nine years. Despite the prolonged duration, the appellant regularly received subsistence allowance. The disciplinary authority concluded that the transfer order was indeed fake and that the appellant, being its sole beneficiary, was guilty of the charge, leading to her dismissal from service in November 2001. Her statutory appeal was rejected, and subsequent challenges before the CAT and the Bombay High Court also failed. The present appeal was a challenge to these orders.

Appellant's Grounds for Appeal:

The appellant primarily contended that her dismissal was unlawful due to:

• Violation of natural justice, citing non-supply of a preliminary inquiry report.
• A vague chargesheet that prejudiced her defense.
• An inordinate nine-year delay in inquiry proceedings.
• Non-supply of certain requested documents.
• The disciplinary authority finding her guilty merely as a beneficiary, without direct evidence connecting her to the procurement of the fake order.
• Violation of statutory rules, specifically Rule 15(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965).
• Allegations of mala fides concerning another transfer involving the Assistant Commissioner's daughter.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Verdict:

The Supreme Court meticulously addressed each of the appellant's contentions:

• Vagueness of Chargesheet: The Court found the chargesheet to be clear and specific, unequivocally stating the charge of procuring a fake transfer order and its consequence.
• Non-supply of Preliminary Inquiry Report/Documents: The Court reiterated that non-supply of a preliminary report, especially if it was not the sole basis for the final conclusion, does not automatically constitute a natural justice violation unless "grave prejudice" is established. Citing the Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar case, the Court emphasized that natural justice principles are not mere formalities; prejudice must be demonstrated. The appellant failed to show how the absence of these documents disadvantaged her defense.
• Inordinate Delay: The Court accepted the respondents' explanation that the nine-year delay was justified due to the inquiry spanning multiple locations and involving different teachers mentioned in the fake order. It noted that the appellant was consistently paid subsistence allowance and did not face hinderance in participating.
• Compliance with Rule 15(2) CCS (CCA) Rules: The Court found that the disciplinary authority had complied with this rule. It confirmed that the inquiry report concluded the transfer order was fake and that the charges against the appellant were proven. The fact that the Inquiry Officer did not identify who helped her procure the fake order did not exonerate the appellant, particularly as she was the sole beneficiary of that specific fake order, unlike the other eleven teachers whose transfers were genuinely processed through different orders.
• Proof of Fake Order: The Court found ample evidence, including the testimony of Mr. V.K. Jain, the alleged signatory of the fake order, who explicitly denied his signature and the issuance of the order. The Court clarified that in departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is "preponderance of probability," which was met in this case, unlike the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard in criminal matters.
• Mala Fides: The allegation of mala fides was rejected as it was neither pleaded before the CAT nor the High Court, and the concerned parties against whom the allegations were made were not impleaded in the appeal.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that there was no violation of statutory rules or principles of natural justice and that the findings against the appellant were based on sufficient evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, reaffirming the judicial stance that procedural lapses must cause demonstrable prejudice to warrant overturning disciplinary actions.