it2025_00892 — Procedural lapses, including delay, cannot invalidate disciplinary proceedings unless substantial prejudice is shown

Procedural lapses, including delay, cannot invalidate disciplinary proceedings unless substantial prejudice is shown — The statutory appeal by an employee challenging her dismissal was dismissed at multiple levels, including the Bombay High Court. The employee contended violation of natural justice principles as the ... — Facts: The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment, dated 24-7-2018 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court upholding the judgment and order, dated 29-9-2004 and 23-2-2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT") in the original application and the review petition respectively, whereby the order of dismissal from service of the Appellant was sustained. The Appellant, a Hindi-trained graduate teacher, was appointed at Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), Bangalore on 11-1-1989 and made permanent with effect from 16-4-1992. As her husband worked in Mumbai, she sought a transfer there. A transfer order, dated 1-10-1991, signed by the Assistant Commissioner, transferred her from Bangalore to Mumbai along with eleven other teachers. She was relieved on 14-10-1991 and reported at Mumbai on 18-10-1991, but was asked to wait as the Principal had not received the official order. She was later allowed to join provisionally on 24-10-1991, submitting an undertaking to return if the order was cancelled. The Appellant noticed that the transfer order described her as a Social Studies teacher instead of Hindi and requested correction from KVS headquarters. Instead of clarification, she was placed under suspension on 13-7-1992 pending inquiry. A charge-sheet, dated 10-2-1993 was issued to her alleging that the Appellant had managed to get herself transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bangalore to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bombay under a fake transfer order. Despite her denial in the reply, dated 25-6-1993, a disciplinary inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 ensued and lasted nearly nine years. Her suspension was revoked on 26-3-2001 with directions to join at Baran, Jodhpur vide letter, dated 26-3-2001 which she did not comply with. The inquiry concluded on 30-3-2001, holding the transfer order to be fake and implicating her as its beneficiary and that all other eleven teachers mentioned in the said transfer order had been transferred under different orders which were found to be genuine. Despite her detailed representation disputing the findings, the disciplinary authority found her guilty for the reason that she 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 and dismissed her from service on 16-11-2001. The statutory appeal preferred by the Appellant against her dismissal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 11-2-2002 after a personal hearing. She then approached the CAT, Mumbai which dismissed her Original Application on 29-9-2004 and later rejected her Review Petition also on 23-2-2005. A writ petition before the Bombay High Court was dismissed on 24-7-2018. The present appeal challenges these concurrent decisions, primarily on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, contending that the charge-sheet issued to the Appellant was vague and failed to clearly specify the allegations.