Delhi High Court restores honour of former CISF officer

The Delhi High Court has restored the ‘honour’ of a 72-year-old former CISF officer, who was forced to retire 20 years ago over allegations of sexually harassing a woman colleague, saying the complaint appeared to be motivated.

The high court said the charge levelled against the petitioner was not proved, and even if it is presumed that it has been found to be proved by the enquiry officer, the punishment as grave as compulsory retirement ought not to have been imposed.

“Having regard to the fact that a period of about 25 years (since the allegation) 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’,” a bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vimal Kumar Yadav said in an order passed on December 19. The bench said it feels that the letter by the complainant 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. Such defence, which appeared plausible, has not been given any credence by the investigating officer,” it said, adding the allegations “reek of vengeance rather than genuine harassment”.

The court passed the order on a plea by the petitioner, ex-assistant commandant in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), challenging an October 2005 order of Deputy Inspector General (L&R) by which he was compulsorily retired from service. The petition was filed in 2006.

The court noted the petitioner prayed that, except for restoring the honour, he is not interested in any monetary gain, and he would not ask for any consequential benefits and remain satisfied with whatever pension or monetary benefits he is getting.

The high court quashed the 2005 order and also the enquiry report of 2004 while holding that the conducting of the third preliminary enquiry and consequential disciplinary enquiry was itself uncalled for and the finding recorded by the enquiry officer was not in accordance with the evidence.

“Consequent to the quashing 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 the date of compulsory retirement (October 26, 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 with effect from March 1, 2026,” it said.

The bench noted that two of the three preliminary enquiries had exonerated the petitioner and said it did not find any sufficient reason or cause for the authorities to have ordered a third preliminary enquiry.

“The respondents ought to have given quietus to the issue, given the nature of allegations which reek of vengeance rather than genuine harassment. Moreso, there is no allegation of a serious nature,” it said.

The woman constable had made a representation to the authorities in November 1999, levelling allegations against the petitioner of an attempt to develop an illicit relationship and passing inappropriate remarks against her.

The petitioner had claimed that the complaint was motivated and made 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 had issued a warning letter to the complainant.

The high court said the charge levelled against the petitioner was not proved