Promising career sacrificed by authorities: Supreme Court grants relief to CRPF officer after 25 years

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted relief to a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) officer who spent over 25 years fighting for the service benefits which he claimed were wrongly denied after his dismissal from service [Prakash Kumar Dixit v. Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors.].

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran came down heavily on the authorities for repeatedly failing to comply with earlier court directions, saying the officer’s career had been ruined by the way the case was handled by the authorities who acted with callous indifference.

“A promising career in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was sacrificed by the departmental authorities at the altar of callous indifference to the directions of the High Court and brazen pen-pushing,” it noted.

The case arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against one Prakash Kumar Dixit, who joined the CRPF as an assistant commandant in 1986.

He was removed from service in 1995 after being found guilty of handing over charge without approval and remaining absent without sanctioned leave for 420 days.

Dixit challenged his dismissal before the Delhi High Court. After several rounds of litigation spanning nearly two decades, the High Court in 2011 set aside the disciplinary authority’s order and directed the authorities to reconsider the punishment. A division bench of the High Court later ordered that he be reinstated pending such reconsideration, a direction that was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2014.

Although Dixit was reinstated in 2015 with retrospective effect from the date of his original dismissal, the authorities simultaneously placed him under deemed suspension while reconsidering the punishment.

On reconsideration, the disciplinary authority concluded that removal from service was excessively harsh and decided instead to impose a minor penalty of reduction by one stage for three years without cumulative effect and without affecting his pension.

However, that decision never came into effect. Following movement of the file between different government departments, the disciplinary authority’s view was overturned and Dixit was removed from service once again through a fresh order passed in 2018.

Dixit challenged the fresh removal before the Delhi High Court. In 2019, the High Court set aside the 2018 order, restored the disciplinary authority’s decision imposing only the minor penalty and directed that his reinstatement would relate back to his original dismissal in 1995.

It also directed that he be granted consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation and promotion. The Supreme Court upheld that judgment in 2020.

Despite the High Court and Supreme Court's judgments favouring Dixit, he alleged that the authorities failed to implement its directions in their true spirit.

While they promoted him as deputy commandant after convening a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the promotion was granted only notionally from 2021 by treating the three-year minor penalty as having commenced from the second removal order passed in 2018.

Claiming that this defeated the High Court’s directions, Dixit initiated contempt proceedings before the Delhi High Court.

A single-judge hearing the contempt case held two senior CRPF officers guilty of contempt and granted them six weeks to purge the contempt by promoting Dixit to the post of inspector general from the date his immediate junior was promoted.

The Union government challenged that order before a division bench, which held that Dixit was not entitled to promotion as inspector general because he did not satisfy the eligibility conditions. Dixit then approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, Dixit argued that once the High Court had substituted his dismissal with a minor penalty, the penalty necessarily related back to his original termination in 1995. Treating it as commencing only in 2018 had wrongly deprived him of promotions, back wages and higher pensionary benefits.

The Union government contended that the disciplinary proceedings had ultimately culminated in a finding of guilt and therefore the three-year penalty could operate only from the second termination order passed in 2018. It also argued that Dixit was not entitled to further promotions.

The Supreme Court rejected the contention. It held that the minor penalty necessarily related back to the original termination in 1995 and not the second removal order passed in 2018.

The Bench directed that Dixit be granted promotion as deputy commandant from the date his batchmates became entitled to promotion, along with consequential back wages, revised pensionary benefits and arrears.

It also closed the contempt proceedings on the condition that the Union government pay Dixit ₹10 lakh towards the costs of litigation within two months.

[Read Judgment]