Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal, Holds No Violation of Natural Justice in Dismissal Over Fake Transfer Order

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih heard the appeal by S. Janaki Iyer against a Bombay High Court judgment which had upheld orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) sustaining her dismissal from service. The appeal challenged findings of a departmental inquiry that a transfer order dated 01.10.1991 was "fake" and that the appellant, being the "sole beneficiary" of that order, had procured a transfer improperly; grounds of challenge included alleged breach of principles of natural justice, non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report, vagueness of the charge-sheet, inordinate delay of the inquiry, and non-compliance with Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the CAT and the High Court. It held that the charge-sheet was sufficiently specific, that non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report did not cause any demonstrable prejudice, and that the long duration of inquiry did not vitiate proceedings where the delay was explained and subsistence allowances were paid. The Court accepted that departmental proceedings required proof on the preponderance of probabilities and found this standard met on the record, including the response to a questionnaire where the Assistant Commissioner, under whose signature the transfer order purportedly stood, stated that "the signatures on the alleged order dated 01.10.1991 had not been signed by him" and that "the said transfer order was fake." The Court also found that the procedure under Rule 15(2) had been complied with and that mere absence of identification of the person through whom the appellant allegedly procured the order did not exonerate her where she was the sole beneficiary. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The position in law on this aspect as has been culled out by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others vs. B. Karunakar and Others followed and explained thereafter by this Court expounded the doctrines of reasonable opportunity and natural justice to have been conceived and evolved not as a mechanical or a ritualistic formality, but as substantive principles intended to safeguard the rule of law and to facilitate the assertion of legitimate rights by individuals. It was categorically held that these principles are not to be invoked as mere procedural sacred words that have magical effect when said on every occasion, irrespective of context. The Court underscored the aspect as to whether prejudice has in fact been occasioned to an employee by the non-supply of the inquiry report which must be assessed with reference to the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Upon such assessment, if it is evident 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 to uphold."

Background The appellant was appointed as a teacher in 1989 and was placed on a transfer to Mumbai by an order dated 01.10.1991 bearing the signature of an Assistant Commissioner. She joined provisionally and later was placed under suspension in July 1992. A chargesheet dated 10.02.1993 alleged that she had secured transfer under a fake order. An inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 ran for nearly nine years; the inquiry officer concluded that the transfer order was fake and that charges were proved against the appellant, who was the sole beneficiary. The disciplinary authority called for and considered her representation and thereafter dismissed her from service on 16.11.2001; the appellate authority rejected her statutory appeal on 11.02.2002. The CAT dismissed her original application on 29.09.2004 and its review on 23.02.2005; the Bombay High Court upheld those orders on 24.07.2018. Before the Supreme Court the appellant relied on procedural infirmities, delay, and alleged vagueness of charges; respondents relied on documentary and oral evidence, including the Assistant Commissioner’s denial of the signature on the impugned order. The Court found no prejudice from non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report, upheld compliance with Rule 15(2), accepted the standard of proof applied in departmental proceedings, and dismissed the appeal. There were no interim directions and the Court made no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No.10858 OF 2024 (@ SLP (C) No. 29718 of 2018) (2025 INSC 742) Case Title: S. Janaki Iyer v. Union of India & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not mentioned in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not mentioned in the judgment