Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JJ.
Ranjan Pratap Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 4096 of 2021, CM APPL. 12485 of 2021, CM APPL. 42622 of 2021, W.P.(C) 11716 of 2021, CM APPL. 36206 of 2021, CM APPL. 51414 of 2023, CM APPL. 51515 of 2023, CM APPL. 55036 of 2023, CM APPL. 55160 of 2023
Decided On : 19-06-2026
For the Petitioner:Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, Mr. Naveen Kumar Vashisht, Mr. Tarunveer Singh Taggar and Ms. Yogita Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Mr Rajeev Khatana, SPC, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Akash Mishra, Mr. Arnav Mittal, Mr. Naman, Mr. Subham Sharma and Yesvardhan, Advocates and Mr. Devesh Tripathi, DC, Mr. A. Mohan Krishna, AC and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Insp., CISF in person.
Disciplinary proceedings may continue regardless of criminal trial outcomes. An acquittal in a criminal case does not mandate the closure of departmental inquiries; the disciplinary authority retains the discretion to evaluate the findings of a criminal court when determining the merits of a charge-sheet.
Headnote:(A) Service Laws - Disciplinary Proceedings - Criminal Case - Simultaneous existence of departmental proceedings and criminal trial is legally permissible - An acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically bar the continuation or conclusion of departmental inquiry, as the disciplinary authority maintains the discretion to evaluate the relevance of judicial findings in the context of official misconduct. (Paras 19, 20)
(B) Service Laws - Suspension - Competent Authority - The review of suspension orders and the determination of official headquarters during the period of suspension reside within the administrative domain of the competent authority - Where procedures under established instructions are satisfied, such administrative actions are not subject to judicial interference unless evidence of illegality is demonstrated. (Paras 14, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the initiation of departmental proceedings and several orders related to an extended suspension period. The petitioner asserted that disciplinary action should be deferred pending the final outcome of criminal proceedings. Additionally, the petitioner contested the validity of the suspension extensions and the designation of a specific location as the headquarters during the period of suspension.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that departmental inquiry is a distinct process from criminal adjudication. The authority to proceed with disciplinary actions remains with the employer regardless of the trial status. The suspension procedures were found to have received the necessary approvals from the competent authority, and the decision regarding the placement of headquarters was held to be within the scope of administrative discretion.
Issues: Whether departmental proceedings are sustainable during the pendency of or following an acquittal in criminal proceedings, and whether the administrative orders regarding suspension and headquarters were passed by the competent authority in compliance with service regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that departmental proceedings and criminal trials serve different purposes, and a criminal acquittal does not preclude the disciplinary authority from deciding upon the charges independently. Furthermore, administrative decisions, including suspension and the setting of headquarters, are valid if they strictly adhere to internal service instructions and receive appropriate approval from the designated authority.
Result: Petitions disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of departmental proceedings and framing of charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. conduct tarnishing the image of the force constitutes valid grounds for misconduct. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. competent authority has discretion over suspension and fixing of headquarters. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. departmental inquiries can proceed despite acquittal in criminal cases. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. final disposal of writ petitions and pending applications. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT :
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. These two petitions have been filed by the petitioner primarily challenging his suspension and initiation of the departmental proceedings under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [CCS(CCA) Rules].
2. As common facts arise for consideration in both these petitions and the issues which need to be considered are primarily related to identical foundational facts, we deem it appropriate to decide both these petitions by this common order.
3. W.P(C) No.4096/2021 has been filed with the following prayers:-
“(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari based on which the Respondents have issued the impugned Memorandum 24.09.2020 proposing to hold Departmental Proceedings against the Petitioner as well as the records based on which the Respondents have rejected the representations submitted by the Petitioner against such action vide orders dated 14.12.2020 as well as 16.03.2021 and thereafter quash the same:
(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus/Prohibition in the form of direction to the Respondents to await the final outcome of the ongoing criminal proceedings before taking any further decision regarding any further departmental action on the same facts.”
4. The challenge in this petition is primarily to the charge-sheet dated 24.09.2020 and also order dated 14.12.2020 whereby the plea of the petitioner for furnishing him the documents relating to a criminal case and order dated 16.03.2021 whereby the representation of the petitioner for giving a personal hearing before initiating departmental enquiry before the disciplinary authority was rejected. By way of memorandum/charge-sheet dated 24.09.2020, the respondents have initiated departmental proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules whereby two articles of charge have been framed against the petitioner, which we reproduce as under:-
“Article-I
That Shri Ranjan Pratap Singh, Sr. Commandant, CISF while on deputation with the Ministry of External Affairs as Director with effect from 03.10.2017, he with the help of his friend Shri Neeraj Chouhan, Advocate hatched a conspiracy and planted 52 packets of drugs (Charas) weighing 560 gm in a car bearing No. DL 12 CE 3713 of Shri Amit Savant, R/o House No.E-12, Pragati Vihar Hostel, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi on 04.10.2019 while parked at his residence at Pragati Vihar Hostel, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi thereby indulging in an act of grave ommission & commission amounting to moral turpitude.
Thereby, Shri Ranjan Prarap Singh, Sr. Commandant, failed to maintain rectitude, upright conduct and decorum expected from a Gazetted Officer, violated the instructions contained in Rule 3 (1) (ii), (iii), (vi) and (xviii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer of his status in an Armed Force of the Union - CISF. Hence, the charge.
Article-II
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri Ranjan Pratap Singh, Sr. Commandant, CISF was arrested by the Delhi Police on 10.10.2019 alongwith Shri Neeraj Chouhan, Advocate for allegedly planting drugs in a car belonging to Shri Amit Savant, Lead Consultant at National E-Governance Division, Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Electronics Niketan, New Delhi. Delhi. Police lodged FIR No.203/209 U/S 20/61/85 NDPS Act & r/w 120-B IPC at PS Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
Thereby Shri Ranjan Pratap Singh, Sr. Commandant, CISF engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the good image of the
