Delhi HC quashed 2005 compulsory retirement of a CISF officer after 20 years.
Court found sexual harassment charges lacked credible or corroborative proof.
CISF officer’s honour restored, and pension to be revised from March 2026.
Delhi HC Restores Honour Of Retired CISF Officer, Quashes 20-Year-Old Forced Retirement, Orders Revised Pension
Delhi High Court quashed the 20-year-old ‘forced retirement’ of a CISF officer, now 72 years old, on sexual harassment charges. The court restored his honour and ordered a revised pension for him
Advertisement
Summary
The Delhi High Court restored the honour of a 72-year-old ex-Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) officer who was forced to take compulsory retirement 20 years back based on sexual harassment allegations by a lady constable in 1999. The court found no credible or corroborative evidence to support the charges and found that the officer was wrongly punished. It held, “We strongly feel that even if it is presumed that such a charge has been found proved by the Enquiry Officer, the punishment as grave as compulsory retirement ought not to have been imposed.”
Background
The petitioner, R. S. Yadav, Ex-Assistant Commandant, joined CISF in September 1976, and was promoted to the post of Assistant Commandant in January 1997. In June 1998, he was posted in the CISF Unit, Dhankuni Coal Complex (DCC).
In November 1999, a lady constable filed a complaint against him, alleging that he had made inappropriate remarks and attempted to develop an illicit relationship with her. According to the petitioner, the allegations were false and were motivated to implicate him, for he has been a strict officer and to control malpractices and bring discipline, he had earlier issued a warning letter to the lady constable.
In response to the complaint, enquiries were conducted against the petitioner four times by three different officers, and despite the first two officers’ reports exonerating the petitioner, a disciplinary enquiry was started against him (petitioner) in June 2022, based on the third officer’s report.
After the due process, on June 28, 2005, the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Personnel & Training, took a decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner. On October 26, 2005, Deputy Inspector General (L&R), CISF, passed the order of the petitioner’s compulsory retirement.
The petitioner had filed a writ petition against the order dated October 26, 2005, to the Delhi High Court, praying for restoration of his honour.
Advertisement
Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel argued that he was a victim of a ploy adopted by the officers, where the lady constable was used as a tool. The counsel emphasised that the lady constable was not even posted in his office during the alleged period.
On the other hand, the respondents’ counsel maintained that Yadav was a unit-in-charge, which means he had supervisory control over all staff in his unit. The counsel also argued that the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to procedural fairness and it “cannot reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings,” and that not only the enquiry officer, but also the Disciplinary Authorities and the Government found the enquiry report valid.
Court Observation
The court expressed skepticism towards the repeated enquiries against the petitioner while he was found innocent in the first and second enquiries. “No satisfactory reason has come forth justifying the third PE,” said the court while hearing the matter.
Advertisement
The court observed “reeks of vengeance rather than genuine harassment” in the matter and pointed out that the complaint was vague, lacking specific dates and months of the incidents. Further, there was no similar complaint of the same nature against, and seeing the petitioner’s clean record, the court noted that the punishment of compulsory retirement was harsh.
Court Judgement
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the 2005 compulsory retirement order and the 2004 enquiry report. It held, “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 said that the petitioner will be deemed to have served CISF until his age of superannuation. As the petitioner has only asked for restoring his honour and not any monetary gains or consequential benefits, the court ordered pension revision effective from March 1, 2026, considering a change in the year of his service with no arrears payable.
Advertisement
Show comments
Published At: