[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Mahesh C vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 March, 2026
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 24.03.2026
+ W.P.(C) 1014/2026 CM APPL. 4913/2026
MAHESH C
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shashank Tripathi, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Akash Chatterjee, SPC and Mr.
Akshit Mohan, Adv., Mr. Ajay Pal,
Law Officer, Inspector 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:-
"a) Issue a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate
writ, order, or direction in the nature thereof, quashing
the impugned departmental proceedings initiated
against the Petitioner pursuant to the Memoranda
dated 15.05.2025 and 17.05.2025, being arbitrary,
illegal, and in violation of Articles 14, 20(2), and 21 of
the Constitution of India;
(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to
appoint a neutral, unbiased Inquiry Officer in
substitution of Smt. Neeraj Bala, Commandant, and to
ensure that the Petitioner is provided the assistance of
his nominated Defence Assistant, Shri Vinod S. Jadhav
(Retd. CRPF Officer), in accordance with CRPF Rules
and principles of natural justice;
c) Issue a further direction that, if any departmental
enquiry is to proceed, the same be conducted strictly in
accordance with law and in camera, to prevent further
mental harassment and ensure procedural fairness,
particularly in view of the sensitive circumstances and
documented grievances of the Petitioner;
d) Issue appropriate directions for staying all further
enquiry proceedings, including hearings or coercive
actions, pursuant to the impugned Memorandums, until
the final disposal of the present writ petition."
2. In substance, the petitioner is challenging the departmental
proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The facts reveal that the
petitioner, who was appointed as a Constable in Central Reserve Police
Force (CRPF), was proceeded against for certain allegations of sexual
harassment. A preliminary enquiry against the petitioner was held in terms
of Standing Order No. 20/2001. Pursuant thereto, the proceedings were held
against the petitioner.
3. The same resulted in a punishment of stoppage of increment for one
year with cumulative effect. It transpired that the said proceedings were
directed to be cancelled as it warranted an enquiry under the Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013 ("POSH Act"). Accordingly, a fresh memorandum
dated 17.06.2022 was issued whereby the respondents proposed to hold an
enquiry against the petitioner under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949
read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955.
4. The enquiry was conducted by Sector Level Internal Complaints
Committee (SLICC) and the concerned sector has followed the enquiry
report as per opinion of the SLICC for taking further action. An issue arose
before the concerned competent authority and also before the enquiry officer
that the named retired Sub-Inspector M. Vinod Jadhav be appointed as a
defence assistant but such a request was turned down by the Presiding
Officer of the SLICC. The petitioner was given an opportunity to appoint
defence assistant. Though an enquiry report has been submitted to the
Competent Authority but it transpired because of the fact that the petitioner
was not granted the opportunity to appoint a defence assistant, the said
enquiry was also cancelled. Accordingly, a third enquiry has been initiated
against the petitioner and the petitioner was allowed to engage Mr. M.
Vinod Jadhav as his defence assistant. It is this enquiry, which is subject
matter of the writ petition.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner has made a representation of bias against the Presiding Officer
namely Neeraj Bala. It is his submission that the grounds raised by the
petitioner alleging bias against the petitioner are justified. It is also his case
that the said petition has not been decided till date.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents, on instruction, states that the
said petition raising grounds of bias has been rejected by the Competent
Authority and an order thereof shall be communicated to the petitioner
within two days from today.
7. The counsel for the petitioner also urges that the Presiding Officer is
not calling upon the complainant to appear in person to enable him to cross-
examine the complainant.
8. On this, the submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that
as and when the petitioner intends to cross-examine the complainant, she
shall be called upon to join the proceedings physically.
9. He also states that as of today, the proceedings are at a preliminary
stage, inasmuch as the petitioner has been granted opportunity to inspect the
document on which the respondents sought to rely upon.
10. If that be so, we are of the view that since the proceedings are in
progress and there is no contention, which goes to the very root of the
initiation of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, we are afraid
that the proceedings cannot be interdicted or interfered with at this stage.
11. Appropriate shall be that the petitioner, if at all, aggrieved by the final
order to be passed by the respondents in the enquiry, may challenge the
same. For this purpose, we keep all the contentions of the petitioner open, to
be agitated at the appropriate time.
12. This petition and pending application are, accordingly, dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MARCH 24, 2026
sr
