ZAHID MAHMOOD vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10554/2021 and CM APPL. 28061/2024 ZAHID MAHMOOD .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC with Ms. Usha Jamnal, Mr. S. Devesh Tripathi, DC, Legal, CISF, Mr. Sohan Lal, Dept. Comdt., Mr. Sanjay Insp., Mr. Prahlad Kumar, Inspector and Mr. Manju Nath, SI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 12.11.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 25 May 2010 issued by the Deputy Inspector General (Pers), CISF, communicating the decision of the President of India, as the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has been awarded a penalty of compulsory retirement. 2. The impugned order has been passed consequent to a detailed enquiry that took place in which the petitioner participated. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 10554/2021 Page 1 of 4 KUMAR Signing Date:12.11.2025 17:56:52 3. We have heard the petitioner, who appears in person, and Mr. Farman Ali, learned CGSC for the respondents. 4. While the Inquiry Report is detailed, the impugned order of punishment does not deal either with the petitioner’s reply to the Inquiry Report or provide any independent reasons as to why the reply was found unsatisfactory, why the Disciplinary Authority chose to agree with the Inquiry Officer or why the Disciplinary Authority chose to award the penalty of compulsory retirement. 5. It is trite that the Disciplinary Authority has to provide reasons for the orders which he passes. He is required, inter alia, to deal with the submissions of the petitioner in his response to the Inquiry Report and also to justify the punishment aw