The Delhi High Court has quashed the punishment of compulsory retirement of a former CISF Officer who was compulsorily retired based on a complaint lodged by a lady Constable alleging sexual harassment. Granting relief to the Officer after 25 years, the High Court stated that the allegations reek of vengeance.

The Writ Petition before the High Court was directed against the order of the Deputy Inspector General (L&R) of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) (third respondent), whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service.

The Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav held, “The second enquiry, which was conducted by Mr.Tedhi Singh, The Deputy Commandant, ought to havebeen accepted, as no irregularity was found and it was in accordance with law. The respondents ought to have given quietus to the issue given the nature of allegations which reeks of vengeance rather than genuine harassment. Moreso, there is no allegation of serious nature.”

Advocate Lokesh Bhardwaj represented the Petitioner while CGSC R.D Bhardwaj represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner joined as a Sub-inspector in CISF and was promoted to the post of Assistant Commandant in 1997. Some time after his promotion, in 1998, the petitioner was posted at CISF Unit, Dhankuni Coal Complex. In 1999, a representation was filed by one lady constable (complainant-B) levelling certain aspersions, which letter was taken to be a complaint levelling allegation of an attempt to develop an illicit relationship and passing inappropriate remarks against her. According to the petitioner, the said complaint was motivated and with an attempt to falsely implicate him, because as a strict officer, he had tried to bring in discipline and curb theft and malpractices. Enquiries were held, and the petitioner was exonerated.

Based on a third Preliminary Enquiry (which was factually fourth), a disciplinary enquiry was instituted against the petitioner. The enquiry report was considered at various levels, and a decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner was taken by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Personnel & Training.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that in two out of the three Preliminary Enquiries, and Review Report, the petitioner was exonerated. “We do not find any sufficient reason or cause for the respondent no.3 to have order for a third preliminary enquiry (which was factually fourth PE)”, it mentioned.

The Bench was of the view that no satisfactory reason had come forth justifying the third PE, when he was found innocent in the first and second PE. The Bench held that the order of conducting a third Preliminary Enquiry and its report was uncalled for, and the initiation of Disciplinary Enquiry against the petitioner, which was a consequence of the third PE and the resultant order too, was unwarranted. The Bench further stated, “We are cognizant of the legal position that the scope of interference, when it comes to finding of facts, is minuscule and that the strictness of proof required in the Disciplinary Enquiry is not as high as is in Criminal Trial.”

The Bench found that there was no similar allegation against the petitioner during his past tenure, and no complaint had ever been received against him.“We also feel that the letter written by the complainant-B was motivated or actuated by some ulterior motive, maybe because of the fact that the petitioner had initiated action against her. The possibility that the exaggerated, if not, false complaint was filed because of the warning issued to her cannot be ruled out. Such defense which appeared plausible has not been given any credence by the IO”, the order read.

Thus, allowing the Petition and quashing the order of compulsory retirement, the Bench held, “Having regard to the fact that a period of about 25 years has since passed and the petitioner has attained 72 years of age, we feel that the least we can do is, to restore his honour, which according to us, has been destroyed by the action of ordering ‘compulsory retirement”

Cause Title: Ex. Asstt.Commandant R.S.Yadav v. UOI (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:11911-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Lokesh Bhardwaj, Ashna Narang, Jatin, Shivam Chauhan, Petitioner-in-person

Respondent: CGSC R.D Bhardwaj, SPC Kushagra Kumar, AC Ali Mohamad, Insp. Sanjay Kumar, S.K. Bharti, SI, CISF Manjunath

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Dinesh MehtaJustice Vimal Kumar Yadav

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.