"‘Violation of Natural Justice Cannot Be Brushed Aside’: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Dismissal, Orders Compulsory Retirement with Pension for CISF Officer"
Isabella Mariam
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, delivered a judgement concerning a writ petition filed by a former Assistant Commandant in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The petitioner had sought quashing of disciplinary orders that resulted in his removal from service following a complaint of sexual harassment. The court set aside the dismissal, converting it into a compulsory retirement, directing that the petitioner be entitled to full pensionary benefits.
The petitioner was serving as Unit Commander at CISF Unit, LPSC, Valiamala, Trivandrum, Kerala, in the rank of Assistant Commandant when an anonymous complaint of sexual harassment was received in 2008. Although the complainant denied authoring the letter, she affirmed the allegations during deposition. The Complaint Committee, constituted thereafter, conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted a report on January 27, 2009, stating the charges stood proved.
The petitioner challenged the report before the Disciplinary Authority, who, acting on the advice of the UPSC, imposed the penalty of removal from service on January 14, 2010. A statutory petition filed with the Ministry of Home Affairs was rejected on June 24, 2010.
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shanker Raju, argued that the entire inquiry process violated principles of natural justice. It was submitted that:
- The petitioner was not provided with a Defence Assistant, as required under paragraph 7(viii) of the DG CISF Circular dated January 15, 2006, and the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
- A copy of the complaint was not furnished before the preliminary hearing.
- The Complaint Committee's constitution was flawed, as the complainant denied authoring the original complaint.
- The evidence relied upon lacked legal admissibility, with contradictions in witness testimonies.
- The petitioner was denied access to the UPSC's advice prior to the penalty decision.
The petitioner relied on Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, and Union of India & Ors. v. R.P. Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 340, to assert that procedural irregularities and non-supply of critical documents invalidated the disciplinary proceedings.
On behalf of the respondents, Ms. Anjana Gosain submitted that the complaint was made to the DIG on February 25, 2008, and a preliminary inquiry found prima facie evidence of misconduct. A properly constituted Complaint Committee undertook a detailed investigation, during which the petitioner had full opportunity to present his defence, including the examination of sixteen defence witnesses. The Disciplinary Authority, upon UPSC advice, imposed removal from service, and the statutory petition was duly reviewed.
The respondents contended that the procedure was consistent with the Vishaka Guidelines and the CCS (CCA) Rules, and that there was no procedural irregularity.
The Bench recorded that the petitioner challenged the dismissal both on the merits of the inquiry and for violation of procedural safeguards. On the evidentiary front, it was noted that:
"the complainant stated that she had neither signed nor sent the complaint on the basis of which the Complaints Committee was constituted...she admitted that she had not even read the contents of the said complaint."
Furthermore, discrepancies in her deposition were cited by the petitioner, particularly her denial of receiving calls from the petitioner and the assertion that she was never assigned runner duties, which was supported by other CISF personnel's testimonies.
The court observed:
"this Court, in exercise of the power of judicial review in matters arising out of disciplinary proceedings, has a limited scope...interference is warranted only where decision-making is vitiated by a patent error of law, procedural irregularity, or manifest violation of the principles of natural justice."
Regarding the denial of a Defence Assistant, the court referred to Balwan Singh v. Union of India, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3165 and Shyamvir Singh Tyagi v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5512, stating:
"it is incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority or...Complaint Committee to inform the charged official about his right to be assisted by a Defence Assistant during the course of the inquiry."
On the issue of non-supply of the complaint before the hearing, the court stated:
"the petitioner was not furnished a copy of the complaint or a copy of the list of witnesses before the inquiry commenced, thus, not making him adequately equipped with his defence in the inquiry proceedings."
The bench further considered the OM dated July 14, 2016, which mandates supply of UPSC advice before imposing a penalty post the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589. However, it concluded:
"In the present case...cases decided prior to the judgment in S.K. Kapoor (supra) need not be reopened."
The court recorded the petitioner’s willingness to accept compulsory retirement as an alternative to reinstatement, stating: "the petitioner would be satisfied if the penalty of ‘Removal from Service’ is converted to that of the ‘Compulsory Retirement’ with all due retiral benefits accruing to him."
Accordingly, the court directed: "the petitioner be treated to be in service till 14.01.2010, after which he will stand compulsorily retired from 14.01.2010, with full pensionary benefits."
The relief for compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs were rejected: "where the Impugned Order is being set aside only because of the technical infractions...we do find any merit in the same. The same is accordingly rejected."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shanker Raju and Mr. Nilansh Gaur
For the Respondents: Ms. Anjana Gosain and Ms. Nippun Sharma
Case Title: XXX v. UOI and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:2866-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 2926/2011
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Shalinder Kaur
[Read/Download order]
