Supreme Court: Mere Delay During Inquiry Proceedings Not A Basis For Vitiating Departmental Proceedings When Time Taken Is Explained
The Supreme Court upheld the Order of dismissal of a former teacher from service.
Justice Abhay S Oka & Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that mere delay during inquiry proceedings cannot be made the basis for vitiating departmental proceedings when the time taken for the inquiry to conclude is explained.
The Court upheld the Order of the Bombay High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had sustained the dismissal of a former teacher (Appellant) from service. The primary grounds for challenging the Orders were alleged violations of the principles of natural justice due to the non-supply of a preliminary Inquiry Report and an inordinate delay of nine years in the inquiry proceedings.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “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. 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. In the present case, the same is absent and therefore the said plea of delay fails.”
Senior Advocates B.H. Marlapalle, Prasenjit Keswani and Manjula Rao appeared for the Appellant, while AOR Amrish Kumar represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant was appointed as a Hindi trained graduate teacher and later became permanent. She sought a transfer to Mumbai or Pune, after which a transfer order transferring her from Bangalore to Mumbai was allegedly served upon her. Initially, she was asked to wait as the transfer order had not been received by the Principal at Mumbai, but was eventually permitted to join provisionally with an undertaking to return to Bangalore if the order was reversed or cancelled.
A discrepancy was noted in her transfer order, where she was mentioned as a Social Studies teacher instead of a Hindi teacher, prompting her to send a letter to Headquarters in New Delhi seeking correction. Subsequently, an order placed her under suspension pending disciplinary inquiry.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court stated, “The principles of natural justice are founded on three fundamental rules that ensure fairness in legal and administrative proceedings. Firstly, the Hearing Rule (Audi Alteram Partem) which mandates that no person should be judged without being given a fair opportunity to present his case. Secondly, the Bias Rule (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua) which asserts that no one should act as a judge in its own case, thereby safeguarding impartiality and preventing any form of bias. Lastly, the principle of Reasoned Decision, also known as Speaking Orders, requires every decision to be supported by valid and clearly stated reasons to promote transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.”
The Court found the chargesheet to be "very clear and specific". The charge that she "managed to get herself transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bangalore to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bombay under a fake transfer order" was unambiguous, and it was clear she was the "sole beneficiary" of the fake order. Thus, the plea of vagueness was not sustained.
The Bench held that the non-supply of the preliminary Inquiry Report did not cause prejudice, as it was "never made the basis for coming to a conclusion in the regular Departmental Inquiry with regard to the guilt of the Appellant". A regular Departmental Inquiry was held where both parties presented evidence. The Court reiterated that violation of natural justice principles requires establishing "grave prejudice". Since no prejudice was shown, this plea was not available to the Appellant.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In view of the above, there has been no violation of any statutory rules nor has there been violation of principles of natural justice with their being ample evidence to establish with regard to the transfer order dated 01.10.1991 being fake which fulfilled the requirements as have been laid down in the statutory rules as well as the law finalized by this Court. The Impugned Orders being in accordance with law do not call for any interference.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: S. Janaki Iyer v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 742)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocates B.H. Marlapalle, Prasenjit Keswani and Manjula Rao; AOR V. D. Khanna; Advocate Upmanyu Tewari
Respondents: AOR Amrish Kumar and Shubhranshu Pad; Advocates Gaurav Adusumalli, Jay Nirupam, D. Girish Kumar, Pranav Giri and Ekansh Sisodi
