'Serving Nation, Deserved Better': Delhi High Court Slams Disciplinary Authority Over CRPF Officer's 20-Yr Legal Battle

A CRPF personnel serving the nation deserved better treatment, remarked the Delhi High Court while lamenting the 20 years long battle fought by a sub-inspector to get clearance in disciplinary proceedings.

A division bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Saurabh Banerjee observed that the Petitioner, “belonging to the CRPF ought to have been on the field for which he was recruited by the respondents rather than being involved in multiple rounds of litigation before different High Courts, and that too since the last more than 20 years.”

A chargesheet was issued to the Petitioner back in 1996 for alleged failure to comply with the lawful orders issued by the Officiating Commandant.

While the enquiry officer exonerated him, the Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement note and an order of compulsory retirement.

The Petitioner then approached the High Court, which directed the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the report of the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority however again found the Petitioner guilty.

This cycle repeated over and over again, culminating into three orders of the High Courts and five rounds of litigation before the Disciplinary Authority.

Despite such a prolonged battle, the High Court noted that the Disciplinary Authority never stated its findings/ reasons as to why it was in disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

“The reasoning rendered by the Disciplinary Authority seems more of a presentation of the facts in an explanatory manner with little to no findings,” the Court said, adding that it reflected a “vindictive approach” and the Authority always wanted to hold the petitioner guilty.

Petitioner had sought to treat the entire period of his service, from the date of initial compulsory retirement to the date of superannuation, as 'period spent on duty'.

Granting the relief, the High Court also cited Rules 15(3)(b) and (4) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 which reflect that in the eventuality when the Disciplinary Authority deems it necessary to consult/ seek advice from the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)11, the Disciplinary Authority is mandatorily required to furnish the advice so tendered by the Commission to the delinquent officer.

However, in the present case, no such opportunity was accorded to the petitioner, which the Court said is a “stark contravention” of the right to audi alterum partem and a violation of the established principles of natural justice.

“Having said so, we have no hesitation in observing that the conduct of the respondents towards the petitioner has not only been biased, but also harsh as it clearly reflects a vindictive approach of the respondents towards him. The respondents have, since and from last more than 20 years, been trying their level best to toe their own line. A CRPF personnel like the petitioner, who was serving the nation deserved a better treatment.”

Also, for no fault of the petitioner, it added, “the extended litigation spanning over more than 20 years has caused substantial loss to the public exchequer. This should stop or else it may send wrong signals to the general members of the public, especially those interested in joining the CRPF.”

As such, the Court held that the Petitioner is entitled to receive all the consequential benefits of his service from the date of his compulsory retirement till superannuation.

Appearance: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal with Mr. Vikrant Chawla, Ms. Manika V. Aggarwal, Mr. Mayank Chauhan, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Vinay Yadav, with Mr. Ansh Kalra, Ms. Kamna Behrani, Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Advocates with Insp Athurv CRPF, Mr Ramniwas Yadav, CRPF for Respondents

Case title: Prabhat Singh Charak v. Union of India

Case no.: W.P.(C) 5823/2015

Click here to read order