[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Ct Raju Ranjan Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 February, 2026
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 25.02.2026
+ W.P.(C) 2658/2026, CM APPL. 12951/2026
CT RAJU RANJAN KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mayank Sharma, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nishant Gautam CGSC, Ms.
Kavya Shukla Mr. Vineet Negi Mr.
Naman Sharma and Ms. Theresa,
Advs., Mr Ajay Pal, Law Officer,
Insp. Athurv And Mr. Ramniwas
Yadav, CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"(i) It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ (s) of
certiorari/mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order and directions to quash/set aside Notice bearing
No. M.3- 1/2026-Estt-8 dated January 2026 issued by
the respondents through respondent no. 4 against the
petitioner to invalidate him from his service and the
recommendations of medical invalidation board dated
18.11.2025 as mentioned in the notice bearing no. M.3-
1/2026-EFstt-8 dated January 2026;
(ii) That the petitioner has not been supplied with
findings of medical invalidation board and prays;
To direct the respondents to immediately supply the
complete Medical Invalidation Proceedings along with
other relevant documents to the petitioner;"
2. The challenge in this petition is primarily to a communication of
January, 2026 issued by the respondents to the petitioner whereby the
respondents have expressed themselves to invalidate the petitioner without
disability pension on the ground of Alcohol Dependent Syndrome (ARS).
3. We note that from the communication the respondents have also
expressed that, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the Board's
recommendation, he can produce a document issued by a Government
Doctor not below the rank of Civil Surgeon, which shall be his opinion after
examining the petitioner on all aspects, keeping in view, the opinion of the
Board.
4. During the course of hearing, a submission is made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that though there is a mention in the impugned
communication but the copy of the MIG proceedings has not been given to
the petitioner. On this the, learned counsel for the respondents has handed
over the Board proceedings to the Court as well as to the counsel for the
petitioner.
5. If that be so, we are of the view that appropriate for the petitioner is to
seek an opinion from the Government Doctor, not below the rank of Civil
Surgeon, at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi by submitting the
Board's proceeding to the concerned Doctor, to enable the Doctor give his
opinion after examining the petitioner, which shall be considered by the
respondents for further action.
6. Given the petitioner's condition at present, appropriate shall be that
the respondents provide ambulance facility to enable the petitioner and his
wife approach Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi for seeking
opinion of the Government Doctor.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
despite the petitioner submitting an application for grant of leave, the same
has not been considered. The counsel for the respondents states that the
same shall be considered and leave shall be granted within one week from
today by clearly mentioning the period. It is expected that the petitioner shall
in advance seek appointment with the concerned Doctor, and inform the
respondents to enable them send the ambulance.
8. We make it clear that the process of getting an opinion from Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi and the respondents considering the
case of the petitioner based on that opinion shall be undertaken within six
weeks as an outer limit.
9. If the decision of the respondents is in favour of the petitioner, the
parties shall act accordingly.
10. With the above observations, the petition and the pending application
are disposed of.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
FEBRUARY 25, 2026/sr
