Civil Defence Act| Once Dismissal From Service Is Found To Be Stigmatic, Hearing Opportunity Must Be Granted: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court observed that once a dismissal from service is found to be stigmatic, hearing opportunity must be granted.

The Court observed thus in Writ Petitions challenging the vires of Sections 6(2) and 14(1) of the Civil Defence Act, 1968 on the ground of non-justiciability of an order of dismissal under Section 6(2) of the Act, presumably since the same cannot be challenged in any Court of law by the operation of Section 14(1) of the Act, thereby, purportedly enforcing an absolute bar on judicial review.

A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla explained, “Hence, in both writ petitions, we find the dismissal orders passed under Section 6(2) of the Act to be stigmatic in essence. We arrive at this conclusion in view of the aforesaid reasons, coupled with the lack of material placed on record by Respondent No. 1 to prove that continuation of their service, was indeed, undesirable. Once dismissal is found to be stigmatic, opportunity to be heard must be granted which is conspicuously absent in the present case.”

The Bench said that while undertaking the judicial exercise of determining the validity of Section 6(2), it must be borne in mind that the provision governs dismissal simpliciter of CDVs, whose engagement is voluntary and honorary in nature.

Advocate Chirayu Jain represented the Petitioners, while SPC Kavindra Kumar Gill and Sr. Central Govt. Counsel Niraj Kumar represented the Respondents.

Case Background

The common background of the Writ Petitions was that the Petitioners served as Civil Defence Volunteers/Members on voluntary and honorary basis in the Civil Defence Corps. They were aggrieved by their dismissal from service or “call-out duty” under Section 6(2) of the 1968 Act, i.e., dismissal simpliciter, without assigning any reasons or awarding them a chance to be heard.

They were further aggrieved by the alleged absolute bar created by virtue of Section 6(2) operating with Section 14(1) of the Act, i.e., thereby, preventing them from availing any judicial remedy. Hence, before the High Court, they sought reinstatement of service and damages for the loss of duty allowance with effect from the date of discharge.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “… an endeavour must be made to find synergy while balancing the overarching principles of natural justice which serve as an essential safeguard, especially considering the very nature of the service rendered by CDVs.”

The Court enunciated that in the case of a stigmatic dismissal, reasons must be furnished, and due opportunity must be given to the affected party to make their case; however, if there are no negative or stigmatic findings constituting the foundation (as opposed to motive) of dismissal, the requirement of a hearing is not mandatory and the same may depend on the incidental surrounding facts and circumstances.

“A dismissal simpliciter, in its true sense, will not adversely affect the future prospects of a CDV. In the present case, considering the aim and object of the Act and as also duly recognised in Anand (supra), that CDVs are meant to act as “first responders” in situations of disaster, thereby necessitating speedy mechanisms pertaining to their service under the Act; Section 6(2) aligns with the object of the Act in that regard”, it added.

The Court further observed that though authorities enjoy a higher degree of discretion with respect to volunteers; principles of justice and fairness warrant that a balance be met and such discretion should not render a volunteer entirely at the mercy of such authority.

“While legislative competence empowers the Legislatures to stipulate and regulate procedures, they cannot enact provisions that completely negate ambit of judicial review or the power of the constitutional courts to enforce and protect fundamental rights, inter alia, hence, notwithstanding the abovementioned decision, provisions that threaten judicial review and thereby the very basic structure of the Constitution of India, are amenable to challenge”, it elucidated.

The Court was of the view that any attempt made by the relevant authority to envelope the impugned Orders passed under the Act in a protective cover of Section 6(2), so as to divert judicial scrutiny of the Court, falls foul of the restriction mentioned under Section 14(1) of the Act.

“The legality of the order passed under the Act ought to be subjected to judicial review. … Further, as reasoned herein above, Section 14(1) does not protect or create an embargo to the justiciability of an order passed under Section 6 of the Act. Any ramification of such protection would be to confer wide and unfettered powers onto the competent authority under the Act and exclude the scope of judicial review”, it also said.

The Court reiterated that the powers conferred upon a High Court under Article 226 are broad and far-reaching, extending beyond the scope of Part III of the Constitution of India.

“In light of the abovementioned judicial precedents, in our considered view, Section 14(1) of the Act has to be read down to interpret that no Court shall be called upon to consider the propriety, as distinguished from the legality, of any order purporting to be passed under the Act”, it added.

Conclusion

Furthermore, the Court noted that Section 6(2) aligns with the object of the Act and further, dismissal simpliciter, in itself, is a valid and well-settled principle in service law, and hence, it is not liable to be struck down as unconstitutional.

“We now deem it fit to add that if the power conferred under sub-section (2) is exercised to circumvent the rigours of Section 6(1), the legality of such dismissal will be amenable to challenge in a Court of law. … we hold that in the present case, the dismissal under Section 6(2) assumed colours of a stigmatic dismissal and hence, warranted a fair opportunity to be heard and peruse the material relied upon which constituted the foundation of the stigmatic dismissal”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Writ Petitions and directed the Respondents to treat and provide all such opportunities/rights to the Petitioners as have been imbibed under Section 6(1) of the Act.

Cause Title- Deepak Kumar v. Directorate of Civil Defence, Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:11059-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocate Chirayu Jain

Respondents: SPC Kavindra Kumar Gill, Sr. Central Govt. Counsel Niraj Kumar, SC Avnish Ahlawat, Advocates N.K. Singh, and Chaitanya Kumar.

Click here to read/download the Judgment