Where parties do not appear to have been prejudiced in any manner by an alleged misjoinder of defendants or cause of action, the defect, if any, is completely cured by S. 99, C.P.C.
Section 99 C.P.C. and 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lay down that test of substantial compliance and in case of isolation of any procedural rule the issue has to be examined from the point of view of prejudice. In case of disciplinary proceeding even in absence of provisions like S. 99, C.P.C. or S. 35, Cr.P.C., the test of substantial compliance should be applied. This is subject to a rider.
The regulations containing substantive provisions must be strictly complied with, e.g., provision as to who is authority competent to impose a particular punishment on a particular employee officer. Even in case of procedural provisions of a fundamental nature the theory of substantial compliance may not be applicable.
Applying the theory of fundamental compliance it was held that the principles of natural justice were substantially complied with in disciplinary proceedings where copies of statements of two witnesses were not supplied to delinquent but he was allowed to preserve them and take notes there from more than three days prior to their examination. He has also not raised objections.
99-A. No order under section 47 to be reversed or modified unless decision of the case is prejudicially affected:
Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of S. 99, no order under S. 47 shall be reversed or substantially varied, on account of any error, defect or irregularity in any proceedings relating to such order, unless such error, defect or irregularity has prejudicially affected the decision of the case.