S. Janaki Iyer vs Union of India & Ors.

Held: A perusal of the chargesheet dated 10.02.1993 would show that not only did it contain the charges against the appellant but the same was supported by documents as well – The language of the said chargesheet is very clear and specific – She was the sole beneficiary of a fake transfer order – The plea therefore with regard to the vagueness of the chargesheet cannot be sustained – No prejudice having been caused because of the non-supply of the preliminary Inquiry Report to the appellant, the plea of violation of the principles of natural justice would not be available to the appellant – 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 – As far as prolongation of the inquiry for 9 years is concerned, 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 – As far as statutory rules are concerned, the procedure in Rule 15(2), CCS(CCS) Rules, 1965 was duly complied with and followed – As regards the submission that the findings as recorded by the Inquiry Officer with regard to the transfer order being fake are based on no evidence, it falls flat when the alleged author himself denying the said signatures on the document and has gone to the extent of saying that he had not issued the said order, the requirements of the statutory rules in a departmental inquiry stand fulfilled – The preponderance and probability being the touchstone in the departmental proceedings the same having been fulfilled, the plea as sought to be raised by the appellant cannot sustain – The impugned orders being in accordance with law do not call for any interference. [Paras 21, 22, 26, 28, 29]

Principles of Natural Justice – Three Fundamental Rules – Hearing Rule (Audi Alteram Partem) – Bias Rule (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua) – Principle of Reasoned Decision, also known as Speaking Orders:

Held: 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. [Para 20]