Disciplinary Action Can't Be Challenged On Ground Of Non-Supply Of Particular Document Unless Grave Prejudice Shown : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that disciplinary proceedings cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice due to the non-supply of a particular document, unless it is shown that grave prejudice was caused to the employee.In this case, the employee challenged the dismissal on the ground of non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report. The Court rejected the contention noting that no grave prejudice was shown to have been caused.The Court bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice AG Masih was hearing a challenge against the Bombay High Court, which upheld the dismissal of the appellant who was a Hindi-trained graduate teacher at Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan.The Appellant was transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bangalore to Mumbai via an order dated 01.10.1991, signed by Assistant Commissioner V.K. Jain, involving 12 teachers. She joined the Mumbai school provisionally on 24.10.1991 after the Principal initially withheld approval due to non-receipt of the order. Noticing a subject mismatch in the order, she requested a correction but received no response; instead, she was suspended on 13.07.1992, and later charged sheeted on 10.02.1993 for allegedly securing the transfer through a fake order.The reason for the dismissal of the appellant was (1) the fact that the said transfer order dated 01.10.1994 was fake; (2) the Appellant was the sole beneficiary of the said order and except for her no other employee had obtained any undue benefit out of the said order as all the other eleven teachers had been transferred by various other separate orders. An appeal was filed against the dismissal order, which was rejected, and the dismissal order was upheld. This led to the institution of an Original Application before the CAT at Mumbai in the year 2002, which was decided vide order dated 29.09.2004 dismissing the same, upholding the order of dismissal. The Review Petition preferred by the Appellant was also dismissed on 23.02.200,5 leading to the filing of the writ petition before the High Court of Bombay, which also ended up in dismissal vide the impugned order dated 24.07.2018. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant has challenged the impugned orders primarily on the grounds of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. (1) On the issue of vagueness of the chargesheet, the Court observed that the chargesheet's language clearly and specifically stated the charges levied against her. It was observed : "The charge against the Appellant was that she managed to get herself transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bangalore to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bombay under a fake transfer order. In this respect, the language of the said chargesheet in our view is very clear and specific. A common man on going through the same, would understand as to what were the charges which an employee was called upon to face and defend." "It is further apparent and is made clear from the fact in unambiguous terms that she was the sole beneficiary of the said transfer order. The plea therefore with regard to the vagueness of the chargesheet cannot be sustained. " (2) On the issue of non-supply of the copy of the Preliminary Inquiry Report, the Court held that it is an admitted fact that after the prelimiary inquiry, chargesheet was issued to the Appellant and thereafter a regular Departmental Inquiry was held where both the parties had led their respective evidence and on that basis the Inquiry Officer has returned his findings.Grounds Of Violation Of Natural Justice Can Be Taken Only If 'Grave Prejudice' Has Been Established Due To Technical Infringements The Court explained that the non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report in the present case would not amount to a violation of principles of natural justice unless it is proven that grave prejudice was caused due to the non-supply of the report. It observed that "Nothing has also come on record which would indicate that the Appellant had ever sought for the Preliminary Inquiry Report after the issuance of the chargesheet. Similar would be the position with regard to the other documents also which are alleged to have not been supplied to her as the nature and extent of disadvantage or handicap caused or suffered by the Appellant, in the absence of the documents, is missing in the departmental proceedings or the pleadings." It further held that "no grounds have been laid down indicating the prejudice which has been caused to her either during the inquiry or at the stage of projecting her response to the show cause notice given by the disciplinary authority." The Court explained there are 3 Principles of Natural Justice : (1) the Hearing Rule (Audi Alteram Partem) which mandates that no person should be judged without being given a fair opportunity to present his case. (2) 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 and (3) the...

Disciplinary Action Can't Be Challenged On Ground Of Non-Supply Of Particular Document Unless Grave Prejudice Shown : Supreme Court

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Disciplinary Action Can't Be Challenged On Ground Of Non-Supply Of Particular Document Unless Grave Prejudice Shown : Supreme Court

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers