Natural justice in disciplinary proceedings requires proof of prejudice before non-supply of the inquiry report can invalidate dismissal.

Non-supply of the inquiry officer's report before punishment breaches natural justice where the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority are different, but invalidation of the dismissal depends on a case-specific finding of prejudice. The Supreme Court held that the employee must show that withholding the report caused prejudice or could have affected the final result. Because the High Court presumed prejudice without recording such a finding on the facts, its approach was inconsistent with settled law. The dismissal could not be set aside solely for non-supply of the report in the absence of demonstrated prejudice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of dismissal could be set aside merely because the copy of the inquiry officer's report was not supplied to the delinquent employee, without a finding that such non-supply caused prejudice.

Analysis: The controlling rule is that where the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority are different, the delinquent employee is entitled to receive the inquiry officer's report before punishment is imposed. Non-supply of the report does amount to a breach of natural justice. However, the governing precedent also requires the employee to show that the omission caused prejudice or that furnishing the report would have made a difference to the ultimate result. The Court found that the High Court treated prejudice as automatically present and did not record any finding that the employee suffered prejudice on the facts of the case. That approach was inconsistent with the settled law requiring a case-specific inquiry into prejudice.

Conclusion: The dismissal order could not be invalidated solely on the ground of non-supply of the inquiry report in the absence of a finding of prejudice; the High Court's judgment was unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---