Delhi High Court · 2025-02-11
JAI PRAKASH vs DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRY SECURITY FORCE & ORS.
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-16071/2024 2025:DHC:818-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- JAI PRAKASH
- Respondent
- DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRY SECURITY FORCE & ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 20.11.2024 Pronounced on: 11.02.2025 + W.P.(C) 16071/2024 JAI PRAKASH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Hardeep Singh Dahiya, Adv. versus DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRY SECURITY FORCE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi, Mr. Yogya Bhatia and Ms. Ranjana Jetley, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 16071/2024 Page 1 of 10 By:NEELAM Signing Date:11.02.2025 18:07:25 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: “CHA