Disciplinary Inquiry – Non-supply of preliminary inquiry report & Principles of Natural Justice
On 24.10.1991, the appellant joined Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mumbai, on her transfer from Bengaluru. However, she had written to the Headquarters at New Delhi for correction in her transfer order as Hindi teacher instead of Social Studies.
However, on 13.7.1992, the appellant was suspended pending inquiry.
On 10.2.1993, the charge-sheet was served alleging that she had managed her transfer under a fake transfer order.
On 25.6.1993, the appellant filed a reply and denied the allegations.
The disciplinary inquiry was initiated and same continued for almost nine years.
The suspension was revoked, and the appellant was asked to join at Baran, Jodhpur, vide letter dated 26.3.2001. The appellant insisted for a formal transfer order but the same was not given. She never joined in Jodhpur and the inquiry continued and she was paid subsistence allowance.
The inquiry report was concluded, and the charge was proved.
By the order dated 16.11.2001, the appellant was dismissed from service.
HELD 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
An 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. 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 prejudice having been caused, cannot be made the basis for vitiating the departmental proceedings. In the present case, the same is absent and therefore, the said plea of delay fails.
Judgment dated 20.5.2025 of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.10858 of 2024 of S. Janaki Iyer Vs. Union of India and others.
