Delhi High Court Orders Reinstatement Of CISF Officer Dismissed After Alleged Conspiracy Involving Sexual Harassment

Background

Satish Kumar had been serving with the CISF since 1999. The controversy began in September 2006, when Assistant Commandant (AC) C.L. Ganjir was accused by a female constable, Ms. Das, of attempting to sexually assault her at her quarters when her husband was away. Kumar, along with other CISF personnel, responded to Ms. Das's calls for help and restrained Ganjir until the police arrived. Following the incident, Ganjir was suspended and eventually subjected to an inquiry that resulted in his compulsory retirement for attempting to molest Ms. Das.

However, in retaliation, Ganjir accused Kumar, Ms. Das, and others of conspiring to falsely implicate him. As a result, disciplinary actions were initiated against Kumar, Ms. Das, and other personnel. Kumar was dismissed from service in 2010, while Ms. Das was also dismissed but later reinstated by the Gauhati High Court in 2014. Kumar subsequently filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash his dismissal and reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

Petitioner's Arguments

Kumar's counsel, Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, argued that the charges of conspiracy and misconduct against Kumar were entirely fabricated. He emphasized that Kumar had merely come to the aid of Ms. Das during the incident, and the accusations were part of a retaliatory strategy by Ganjir to punish those involved in exposing his misconduct. Bajaj further noted that Ms. Das's sexual harassment claims against Ganjir had been upheld in a separate inquiry, leading to Ganjir's compulsory retirement. Therefore, dismissing Kumar for his involvement in the case was unjust. Bajaj also highlighted that Kumar had been acquitted in related criminal proceedings, which involved charges of wrongful confinement and causing hurt to Ganjir. Furthermore, Ms. Das's reinstatement by the Gauhati High Court showed that the allegations of conspiracy were false.

Respondents' Defense

The respondents, represented by Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, maintained that even if the conspiracy charge were disregarded due to Ms. Das's reinstatement, Kumar was still guilty of manhandling Ganjir. The respondents argued that independent witnesses had testified during the departmental inquiry, corroborating the claim that Kumar had tied Ganjir's hands with a skipping rope, which was deemed inappropriate behavior in the course of duty.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court began by acknowledging the general principle that courts should not re-evaluate evidence presented in a departmental inquiry unless there are compelling reasons to do so. However, in this case, the peculiar facts—namely, that the main charge against Kumar was linked to a superior officer, Ganjir, who himself had been compulsorily retired for sexual misconduct—prompted the court to re-examine the evidence. Given the situation, the court found that a closer look at the inquiry's findings was warranted to ensure fairness. Secondly, the court found that the statements of certain witnesses did not establish that Kumar had committed any grave misconduct. While one witness had asked Kumar to tie Ganjir's hands, the court noted that Kumar had been reluctant to do so and had only acted after being pressured by another witness. The court emphasized that “the petitioner could not have been penalized for coming to the aid of Lady Constable Ms. Das at the hands of a superior officer, namely, AC C.L. Ganjir.” There was no evidence that Kumar had manhandled Ganjir or committed any act of violence.

Thirdly, the court referred to the Gauhati High Court's decision in Ms. Das's case (W.P.(C) No. 6403/2011), which found that Ms. Das had been a victim of sexual harassment and quashed her dismissal. The Gauhati High Court had noted that the departmental inquiry into Ms. Das's conduct was marred by an attempt to protect Ganjir and portray him as a victim of conspiracy. The Delhi High Court agreed that similar considerations applied to Kumar, as he had been dismissed based on the same flawed reasoning that sought to shield Ganjir. Fourthly, the court pointed to Kumar's acquittal in the criminal trial as further evidence of his innocence. The trial court in North Lakhimpur, Assam, had acquitted Kumar of the charges of wrongful confinement and causing hurt in May 2014, finding no merit in Ganjir's accusations.

Thus, the Delhi High Court quashed the dismissal order against Satish Kumar and directed his reinstatement with all consequential benefits, including notional seniority and promotion. However, considering that Kumar had not rendered any service since his dismissal, the court limited his back wages to 75%. The court instructed the CISF to complete the reinstatement process within six weeks.

Case Name: Satish Kumar vs. Union of India & Others

Court: Delhi High Court

Date of Judgment: 08-10-2024

W.P.(C) 4703/2015

Advocate for the petitioner: Mr. Himanshu Bajaj

Advocate for the respondents: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC, with Kushagra Kumar, Abhinav Bhardwaj, Advs, and Shri V.K. Topp