S. JANAKI IYER versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 5 S.C.R. 961 · Decided: 20-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 961 : 2025 INSC 742
S. Janaki Iyer 
v. 
Union of India & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 10858 of 2024)
20 May 2025
[Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the impugned orders sustaining dismissal of the appellant 
from the service requires interference; whether there was any 
violation of statutory rules; whether there was violation of principles 
of natural justice; whether, in the instant case, there is ample 
evidence to establish that the transfer order dated 01.10.1991, 
which solely benefited appellant, was fake.
Headnotes†
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) 
Rules, 1965 – Allegation against the appellant that she had 
managed to get herself transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya, 
Bangalore to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bombay under a fake transfer 
order – Chargesheet was filed – Disciplinary Authority found 
appellant guilty of charges – Appellant was dismissed from 
service as appellant was sole beneficiary of the said transfer 
order – A statutory appeal filed before the Appellate Authority 
was rejected – CAT and the High Court also upheld the 
order of dismissal – Appellant, inter alia, contended that the 
chargesheet was vague and principles of natural justice were 
not adhered to by respondents while passing the dismissal 
order – Correctness: 
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 
* Author
962
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 
963
S. Janaki Iyer v. Union of India & Ors.
should act as a judge in its own case, thereby safeguarding 
impartiality and preventing any form of bias – Lastly, the principle 
of Reasoned Decis

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.