New Delhi, Dec 26 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court has annulled the decision to compulsorily retire a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) officer, determining that the disciplinary measures taken against him, which were based on claims of sexual misconduct, were unjust and stemmed from an inquiry process that lacked merit.

A bench comprised of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vimal Kumar Yadav overturned the order issued on October 26, 2005, which led to the compulsory retirement of former Assistant Commandant R.S. Yadav. The court noted that multiple preliminary inquiries were conducted without legitimate justification, despite the officer's prior exoneration.

The bench was reviewing a writ petition filed by Yadav, who faced compulsory retirement following a disciplinary investigation triggered by a complaint from a female constable during his tenure at the CISF unit in Dhankuni Coal Complex, West Bengal.

In its extensive ruling, the Delhi High Court highlighted that Yadav had been cleared in two preliminary inquiries and a review report, yet a third preliminary inquiry—effectively the fourth—was initiated, leading to disciplinary action.

"We do not find any sufficient reason or cause for the respondent to have ordered for a third preliminary inquiry (which was factually fourth PE), when he was found innocent in the first and second PE," the bench remarked, further indicating that the situation suggested a possibility of vengeance rather than genuine harassment.

The court stated that the directive for a third preliminary inquiry, as well as the subsequent disciplinary actions, were "unwarranted and rather solicited," and that the resulting penalty of compulsory retirement was exceedingly harsh.

While recognizing that the threshold for proof in disciplinary cases is based on the "preponderance of probabilities"—less stringent than in criminal proceedings—the court asserted that even with this standard, the case against Yadav was untenable.

The bench commented, "The evidence presented… is merely the complainant’s verbal assertions and lacks any credible or corroborative support."

The High Court also acknowledged discrepancies within the complaint itself, including a lack of specific dates or clarity regarding the alleged events, and noted that the possibility of the complaint being influenced by a warning issued to the complainant could not be dismissed.

Considering that nearly 20 years had elapsed since the contested action and that Yadav is now 72 years old, the Delhi High Court stated 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'."

Accepting Yadav's statement that he was not seeking any financial compensation, the bench ruled that he should be regarded as having remained in service until the age of superannuation. It directed that the time between the contested action and this ruling be recognized notionally for pension purposes, which would be adjusted accordingly, although without the payment of back dues.

"As a result of the annulment of the compulsory retirement order, the petitioner shall be considered to have served the respondents until he reached the age of superannuation," the bench concluded, thereby allowing the writ petition.