Recently, the Delhi High Court set aside the compulsory retirement of a former Assistant Commandant of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), holding that the disciplinary action taken against him was unjustified and procedurally flawed.
The case arose from a writ petition filed by the Ex-Assistant Commandant, who had challenged an order of October 2005 by which he was compulsorily retired from service following allegations of misconduct based on a complaint made by a lady constable. The Petitioner had joined CISF in 1976, earned promotions over the years, and was serving as Assistant Commandant when the complaint was lodged.
The Court noted that after the complaint, multiple preliminary enquiries were conducted. Significantly, the officer was exonerated in two preliminary enquiries as well as a review report. Despite this, the authorities ordered yet another preliminary enquiry, which ultimately led to disciplinary proceedings and the penalty of compulsory retirement.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav observed that there was no sufficient justification for ordering repeated preliminary enquiries after the petitioner had already been cleared earlier. The Bench remarked that the third preliminary enquiry was “uncalled for and rather solicited,” and that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings flowing from it was unwarranted.
The Court further held that even applying the standard of “preponderance of probabilities” applicable to departmental enquiries, the finding that one of the charges stood proved was not supported by credible or corroborative evidence. It also took note of the fact that no similar allegations had ever been made against the officer during his long career.
Taking into account that nearly 25 years had passed since the impugned action and that the petitioner was now over 70 years of age, the Court emphasised the need to restore his honour. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the compulsory retirement order as well as the enquiry report, holding that the officer would be deemed to have continued in service till the age of superannuation. While no arrears were directed to be paid, the Court ordered revision of his pension prospectively.
The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Ex.Asstt.Commandant R.S.Yadav V. UOI & Ors
Case No.: W.P.(C) 6806/2006
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Dinesh Mehta and Hon’ble Mr Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Lokesh Bhardwaj, Adv. Ashna Narang, Adv. Jatin and Adv. Shivam Chauhan,
Counsel for the Respondent: CGSC R. D. Bhardwaj, SPC Kushagra Kumar along with AC Ali Mohamad, Insp. Sanjay Kumar, S. K. Bharti and SI Manjunath, CISF.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
