Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 301
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, Shalinder Kaur, JJ
JAI PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRY SECURITY FORCE & ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-16071/2024
Mr. Hardeep Singh Dahiya, Adv., Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi, Mr. Yogya Bhatia and Ms. Ranjana Jetley, Advs.
The court upheld the dismissal of the petition due to the petitioner's inordinate delay in pursuing appeals, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines.
Headnote:
(A) Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 - Rule 36 - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Compulsory retirement of a constable due to misconduct - The petitioner challenged the Final Order of punishment and subsequent rejection of his Appeal and Revision Petition, seeking reinstatement and benefits. The charges included gross indiscipline and misconduct, with a history of minor punishments. The Inquiry Report led to compulsory retirement, which was upheld despite claims of health issues affecting the petitioner's ability to appeal timely. (Paras 1-21)
(B) Delay and Laches - The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in filing appeals and petitions, stating that inordinate delay can lead to dismissal of claims. The petitioner failed to provide sufficient justification for delays in pursuing remedies. (Paras 16-20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former constable, was compulsorily retired after being charged with misconduct, including an alleged assault on a fellow officer. He had a history of minor punishments and claimed health issues hindered his ability to appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found the petition not maintainable due to the petitioner's failure to act diligently and within prescribed timelines.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the charges against the petitioner and the implications of delay in filing appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner did not provide adequate justification for the delays in pursuing his legal remedies, emphasizing that the law aids the vigilant.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. compulsory retirement of constable (Para 1) |
| 2. charges of indiscipline and misconduct (Para 2) |
| 3. departmental inquiry initiated (Para 3) |
| 4. appeal and revision petition dismissed (Para 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 5. health issues affecting appeal (Para 6) |
| 6. disciplinary authority's conclusions (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. respondents' dismissal of petition (Para 11 , 12) |
| 8. maintainability of the petition (Para 15) |
| 9. importance of timely appeals (Para 18 , 19) |
| 10. petition dismissed (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner, a Former Constable (General Duty) in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), who was Compulsorily Retired from service on 03.04.2017 pursuant to a Final Order of punishment issued by the Commandant, CISF 5th Reserve Battalion, has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the said Order as well as the subsequent rejection of his Appeal and Revision Petition by the Competent Authorities. He seeks, inter alia, a direction to the respondent authorities to dispose of his pending Revision Petition on merits, as well as the setting aside of the Orders culminating in his compulsory retirement. Additionally, the petitioner prays for Reinstatement in service with all Consequential benefits.
Brief Facts:
2. The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable (GD) in the CISF in November 1998. After serving the Force for about 18 years, on 22.09.2016, the petitioner was served with the Memorandum of Charge (MOC) No. 9264 dated 22.09.2016 under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001, leveling two Charges against him, attributing gross indiscipline, misconduct, and negligence towards the duty. The Charges leveled against the petitioner, reads as below:
“CHARGE - I Force No. 982120303 Constable/ GD Jaiprakash of CISF 5th Reserve Battalion, Ghaziabad, on date 06.9.2016 at about 2130, in barrack No 3 all of a sudden in anger to hit with belt attacked Force No. 130115829 Constable/GD Pradeep Kumar, when Constable/GD Pradeep Kumar sat down for dinner. During that time Constable/Barber Ram Prasad present there stopped Constable/ GD Jaiprakash and sent him back to his bed. Constable/ GD Jaiprakash is a disciplined member of armed Force and to attack his fellow member of Force in order to hit with belt in anger apart from being against rules of the Force is the gross indiscipline, misbehaviour, misconduct and negligence towards duty. Hence the Charge.
CHARGE-II Force No. 982120303 Constable/ GD Jaiprakash of CISF 5th Reserve Battalion, Ghaziabad in his previous tenure of service has been seven minor punishments by Disciplinary Authority of seven different units for indiscipline, misconduct and negligence towards duty but the Force member did not make any type of improvement in his conduct and behaviour. From this it is clear that he is habitual of making misuse of adequate opportunities of improvement. Hence the Charge.”
3. The petitioner, in response to the MOC, submitted a reply denying the allegations and asserting that the Charges framed against him were baseless and founded on a concocted narrative. However, the respondents found the petitioner’s reply unsatisfactory. Pursuant to which, a Departmental Inquiry was initiated to examine the Charges leveled against him. Upon completion of the Inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Report dated 15.03.2017 was forwarded to the petitioner vide Letter No. 3032 dated 18.03.2017. Aggrieved by the findings of the Inquiry Report, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.03.2017, challenging the same. However, by way of the Final Order of punishment dated 03.04.2017, the Commandant, CISF, 5th Reserve Battalion, Ghaziabad, imposed upon the petitioner, the penalty of compulsory retirement from service. Pursuant thereto, and in accordance with Rule 40 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the petitioner was granted full compensation pension, gratuity, and other pensionary benefits as admissible under the rules, effective from the dat
