Delhi HC quashes CISF officer’s compulsory retirement after 20 yrs, restores his honour

New Delhi, Dec 26 The Delhi High Court has set aside the compulsory retirement of a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) officer, holding that the disciplinary action taken against him on allegations of sexual misconduct was unjustified and based on an enquiry process that was itself unwarranted.

A bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vimal Kumar Yadav quashed the October 26, 2005 order by which former Assistant Commandant R.S. Yadav was compulsorily retired from service, observing that repeated preliminary enquiries were ordered without any valid justification despite the officer having been exonerated earlier.

The Justice Mehta-led Bench was hearing a writ petition filed by Yadav, who had been compulsorily retired following a disciplinary enquiry based on a complaint made by a woman constable during his posting at the CISF unit at Dhankuni Coal Complex in West Bengal.

In its detailed judgment, the Delhi High Court noted that the petitioner had been exonerated in two preliminary enquiries as well as a review report, but despite this, a third preliminary enquiry —"which was factually the fourth PE" — was ordered, eventually leading to disciplinary proceedings.

"We do not find any sufficient reason or cause for the respondent to have ordered for a third preliminary enquiry (which was factually fourth PE), when he was found innocent in the first and second PE," the bench observed, adding that the authorities "ought to have given quietus to the issue given the nature of allegations which reeks of vengeance rather than genuine harassment".

The Delhi High Court said that the order directing a third preliminary enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings that followed were "uncalled for and rather solicited", and that the resultant punishment of compulsory retirement was wholly disproportionate.

While acknowledging that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on the "preponderance of probabilities" and not as stringent as in criminal trials, it held that even on that yardstick, the findings against the petitioner could not be sustained.

"The evidence adduced… is only the complainant’s oral assertions and not supported by any credible or corroborative evidence," the bench said.

The High Court also took note of inconsistencies in the complaint itself, including the absence of any date or clarity as to when the alleged incidents occurred, and observed that the possibility of the complaint being motivated by a warning issued to the complainant could not be ruled out.

Taking into account that nearly 20 years had passed since the impugned action and that the petitioner was now 72 years old, the Delhi High Court said 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'".

Accepting the petitioner’s submission that he was not seeking any monetary benefits, the bench directed that he be deemed to have continued in service till the age of superannuation. It ordered that the intervening period be counted notionally for the purpose of pension, which shall be revised accordingly, though without payment of arrears.

"Consequent to quashment of the order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner shall be deemed to have served the respondents until he attained the age of superannuation," it observed, allowing the writ petition.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor