Delhi High Court quashes compulsory retirement of CISF officer over harassment case by lady constable

The Delhi High Court has quashed the order dated 26.10.2005 passed by the Deputy Inspector General (L&R) of the Central Industrial Security Force whereby one RS Yadav was compulsorily retired from service.

"Having regard to the fact that a period of about 25 years has since passed and the petitioner has attained 72 years of age, we feel 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’," the bench ordered.

While Yadav was serving as the assistant commandant, in1999, a representation came to be filed by one lady constable levelling certain aspersions, which letter was taken to be a complaint levelling allegation of an attempt to develop illicit relationship and passing inappropriate remarks against her.

According to Yadav, said complaint was motivated and with an attempt to falsely implicate him, because as a strict officer, he had tried to bring in discipline and curb theft and malpractices and in that process, he had issued a warning letter to the complainant-B.

High Court found that in two out of the three Preliminary Enquiries, (vide reports dated 23.02.2000 and 05.12.2000) and Review Report dated 10.06.2000, Yadav was exonerated.

"No satisfactory reason has come forth justifying the third PE, when he was found innocent in the first and second PE. The second enquiry, which was conducted by Mr.Tedhi Singh, The Deputy Commandant, ought to have been accepted, as no irregularity was found and it was in accordance with law. The respondents ought to have given quietus to the issue given the nature of allegations which reeks of vengeance rather than genuine harassment. Moreso, there is no allegation of serious nature", the bench noted.

Noting that the lady constable had not only levelled allegations qua petitioners conduct against herself, but she has also hurled allegation that the petitioner had misbehaved with ASI Alpana Mukherjee and K.R. Mondal, the bench said, "Neither the tenor of above representation which has been treated to be a complaint shows it to be a complaint nor does it clarify that to whom and for what purpose this letter was written. We could not find any date on the letter written by the complainant. It does not contain any date or even month, when the alleged incident took place....If the statement of imputation of misbehaviour in relation to the allegations is perused, we find that the petitioner had allegedly asked the complainant-B that how many rooms are in her house, and if he went to her house, would she be visible from some other room, and that he told her to call him and introduce him to some other girls or lady staff".

In this regard, the bench observed that the charge which had been found proved by the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be proved in the face of the evidence led, as the evidence adduced in relation there to was only complainant’s oral assertions and not supported by any credible or corroborative evidence, and even if it was presumed that such charge has been found proved by the Enquiry Officer, the punishment as grave as compulsory retirement ought not to have been imposed.

While noting that Yadav had prayed that except for restoring the honour, he was not interested in any monetary gain and he would not ask for any consequential benefits and would remain satisfied with whatever pension or monetary benefits he is getting, the bench went on to order thus, "In view of this, we are persuaded to quash and set aside the order dated 26.10.2005, and Enquiry Report dated 08.03.2004, while holding that the conducting of third PE and consequential Disciplinary Enquiry were itself uncalled for and the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer was not in accordance with the evidence. 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. The period between date of compulsory retirement (26.10.2005) and his date of attaining superannuation shall be notionally counted in his service. However, his pension shall be revised accordingly. Though he shall not get arrears of the pension, but shall be entitled to get consequential revised pension w.e.f. 01.03.2026.".

Case Title: EX.ASSTT.COMMANDANT R.S.YADAV vs UOI & ORS.

Bench: Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vimal Kumar Yadav