The Delhi High Court recently quashed a 2005 order that had terminated the services of a now-72-year-old ex-commandant of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), finding that the officer had wrongly been punished over false allegations of sexual misconduct made by a lady constable in 1999.
The officer had told the Court that he did not wish for any monetary relief and only sought the restoration of his reputation.
The Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav observed that restoring the officer's honour was the least the Court could do.
“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 Court stated, while quashing the compulsory retirement order passed against the petitioner.
The petitioner joined the CISF in 1976. In 1998, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Commandant.
In 1999, a lady constable alleged that he made inappropriate remarks about her and attempted to form an illicit relationship with her. She also claimed that he had made sexual advances against two other women.
The petitioner denied these allegations, maintaining that the complainant had falsely implicated him because he had been strict with her and had earlier issued a warning against her when she failed to perform her duties properly.
Two preliminary enquiries conducted into the matter exonerated the officer. However, the Deputy Inspector General (DIG) ordered a third enquiry by a lady officer who concluded that the complaint appeared genuine.
Following the third preliminary enquiry, disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and eventually, the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training, made the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner.
The Special Secretary disagreed with this decision, stating that the complainant had been unable to prove the allegations in open preliminary enquiries. However, in 2005, the DIG proceeded to compulsorily retire the petitioner.
The petitioner challenged this turn of events before the High Court in 2006.
On December 19 this year, the Court observed that there was no justification for conducting a third preliminary enquiry against the petitioner, after the first two enquiries had exonerated him.
The Court further examined a letter written by the complainant and found that the allegations in it lacked clarity in some respects and reeked of vengeance.
“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 Court held.
The complainant's allegations that the petitioner harassed two other women were also not proved, the Court observed.
The Court concluded that the complainant’s allegations against the petitioner were motivated or prompted by some ulterior motive.
“We also feel that the letter written by the complainant-B was motivated or actuated by some ulterior motive, maybe because of the fact that the petitioner had initiated action against her. The possibility that the exaggerated, if not, false complaint was filed because of the warning issued to her cannot be ruled out,” the Court stated.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the decision to terminate the petitioner from the CISF and held that the petitioner shall be deemed to have served in CISF until he attained the age of superannuation.
The Court also ordered the consequential revision of the petitioner's pensionary benefits.
Advocates Lokesh Bhardwaj, Ashna Narang, Jatin and Shivam Chauhan appeared for the petitioner.
Central government standing counsel R D Bhardwaj with senior panel counsel Kushagra Kumar appeared for CISF.
[Read judgment]