Lowering Image Of Armed Forces Can Be Subject Matter Of Chargesheet In Departmental Enquiry: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court was considering two petitions challenging the suspension and initiation of the departmental proceedings against the CISF Officer.
While dealing with the case of a suspended CISF Senior Commandant, the Delhi High Court has held that if an employee lowers the image of the Force because of his omission or commission, the same can be the subject matter of a charge-sheet. The High Court also reiterated that the departmental enquiry can proceed, even if there is an acquittal of the employee in a criminal case.
The High Court was considering two petitions filed by the petitioner, primarily challenging his suspension and initiation of the departmental proceedings under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [CCS(CCA) Rules].
The Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held, “There cannot be any contest that, if an employee lowers the image of the Force because of his omission or commission, surely the same can be the subject matter of a charge-sheet.”
“We say nothing in so far as this submission is concerned, as it is a settled position of law that the departmental enquiry can proceed, even if there is acquittal of the employee in a criminal case. In any case, it is for the disciplinary authority to take a call whether the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court has any bearing in so far as the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner is concerned. Nothing precludes the disciplinary authority to consider the judgment rendered by the Trial Court and take a decision on the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner in accordance with law.”
Advocate Tushar Ranjan Mohanty represented the Petitioner while Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
While the petitioner was functioning as a Senior Commandant, CISF, he was arrested by Delhi Police along with an Advocate for planting drugs in the car belonging to one Amit Savant. The challenge in the petition was primarily made against the charge-sheet and also the order whereby the plea of the petitioner for furnishing him the documents relating to the criminal case, and an order whereby the representation of the petitioner for giving a personal hearing before initiating departmental enquiry before the disciplinary authority, was rejected. The respondents had initiated departmental proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, whereby two articles of charge had been framed against the petitioner.
Arguments
It was the case of the petitioner that his arrest could not be construed as misconduct to be a part of a charge sheet.
Reasoning
The Bench referred to the charge framed against the petitioner, which was that, he, with the help of his friend (an Advocate), hatched a conspiracy and planted 52 packets of drugs (charas) weighing 560 grams in a car belonging to one Amit Savant. It was in that connection that the petitioner was arrested by the Delhi Police, which became the subject matter of Article II.
The Bench noted that the petitioner, having been arrested because of Article-I, had resulted in tarnishing the good image of the Force.The Bench further noticed that the order of suspension was passed after it was approved by the competent authority, much before the expiry of the initial period of suspension of 90 days. One of the arguments raised before the Bench was that during the interregnum, the Trial Court, considering the criminal case, had discharged the petitioner of all the offences which were alleged against him. It was submitted that the foundation for initiating the departmental enquiry did not survive. On this aspect, the Benhc held that a departmental enquiry can proceed, even if there is acquittal of the employee in a criminal case.
The Bench thus disposed of the Petition by ordering, “The petitioner is within his rights to raise all the pleas before the disciplinary authority, in a representation, who shall consider the effect of the judgment of the Trial Court and proceed in accordance with law.”
Cause Title: Ranjan Pratap Singh v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5144-DB)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, Naveen Kumar Vashisht, Tarunveer Singh Taggar, Yogita Sharma
Respondent: Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, Central Govt Standinf Counsel Nidhi Raman, SPC Rajeev Khatana, Advocates Amit Gupta, Akash Mishra, Arnav Mittal, Naman, Subham Sharma, Yesvardhan, DC Devesh Tripathi, AC A. Mohan Krishna, Insp. Sanjay Kumar , CISF in person