Prakash Kumar Dixit vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 725
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.9224 of 2026
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.10712 of 2025)
Prakash Kumar Dixit
….Appellant
Versus
Ajay Kumar Bhalla and Ors.
….Respondents
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. A promising career in the Central Reserve Police Force
(CRPF), commenced as an Assistant Commandant in the year
1986, was sacrificed by the Departmental Authorities at the altar
of callous indifference to the directions of the High Court and
brazen pen-pushing. The appellant’s active service was
curtailed to a little more than a decade-and-a-half while two-and-
a-half decades were spent in litigation. The appellant is now
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by retired and assails the impugned order which interfered with the
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.07.21
15:50:09 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 17
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10712 of 2025
order in a contempt case, directing the appellant to be promoted
to the post of Inspector General (I.G.).
3. We heard Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave,
learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
respondent.
4. The appellant seeks implementation of the directions
issued by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vide order
dated 24.12.2019, produced as Annexure P-3; the ultimate
conclusions arrived at and the directions issued therein, on the
peculiar facts approved by this Court in AnnexureP-4.
According to the appellant, the implementation of the directions
would require the respondent to reinstate him in service from
10.07.1995, the date of his initial termination to which date would
be related the minor penalty imposed by the High Court, of
reduction to one lower stage for a period not exceeding three
years without cumulative effect or adversely affecting pension.
The directions of the High Court with respect to pay fixation,
seniority and all other consequential benefits including
promotion has to necessarily follow, urged the learned Senior
Page 2 of 17
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10712 of 2025
Counsel for the appellant, reckoning which there was a direction
by the learned Single Judge to promote the petitioner to the post
of I.G, which post was occupied by his immediate junior.
5. The learned Additional Solicitor General on the other hand
points out that the disciplinary inquiry was initiated validly
against the appellant and it culminated in a finding of guilt which
finding is approved by the High Court in Annexure P-3 order.
The punishment imposed of reduction to a lower stage for three
years without cumulative effect would stand against the
consideration of the appellant for the three subsequent years
from the date of second termination; substituted with minor
penalty, when the rigor of the punishment restricts such
consideration. The disciplinary proceedings are deemed to be
pending during the years when the appellant was out of service.
The delinquent having been eventually found guilty, even a
sealed cover procedure, if at all carried out, would not inure to
the benefit of the appellant. In any event, the appellant has been
promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant and retired with
due pensionary benefits.
Page 3 of 17
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10712 of 2025
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, however,
would point out that even if the promotion to the post of Inspector
General as has been conferred on his immediate junior is not
possible, the punishment should be related back to the date of
his termination and further promotion could be considered, at
least notionally during the period he was out of service, enabling
him to retire from a higher post with higher pension. It is also
pertinently argued that the contempt case before the High Court
is still alive.
7. The appellant’s active service; as we noticed, was short but
the litigation pursuant to his termination had a chequered career
which we notice from Annexure P-3 judgment. The appellant was
appointed as an Assistant Commandant in the year 1986 and in
the year 1989 he was charge-sheeted for misconduct. The
misconduct alleged was that while functioning as an Officer
Commanding of a platoon deployed in a sensitive area, he
handed over charge to an Inspector without approval from the
competent authority and willfully remained absent without
proper leave from 07.04.1988 for a period of 420 days, thereby
violating the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Page 4 of 17
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10712 of 2025
Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short, ‘ the CCA Rules’ ). The inquiry
culminated in a finding of guilt and after consultation with the
Union Public Service Commission (UPSC); which concurred with
the imposition of a penalty of removal from service, the appellant
was imposed with such penalty on 10.07.1995.
8. The ordeal of the appellant commenced then, when an
appeal was rejected. A Writ Petition filed in the year 1996 was
disposed of in the year 2000 directing reconsideration of the
appeal filed by the appellant. The departmental appeal again
came to be rejected in the year 2000 which was challenged
unsuccessfully in yet another Writ Petition. In an appeal filed
from the said order, a Division Bench remanded the matter for
fresh consideration to the learned Single Judge. Despite a
contention raised that the appellant had only a revisional remedy
and not an appellate remedy, the learned Single Judge again
directed consideration of the appeal under Rule 27 of the CCA
Rules. In a further appeal filed, a Division Bench remanded the
matter to the learned Single Judge directing consideration of the
Writ Petition on merits.
Page 5 of 17
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10712 of 2025
9. In 2011, a learned Single Judge of the High Court finding
that the Disciplinary Authority (D.A) had merely reproduced the
charges and imposed the major penalty, set aside the order for
non-application of mind and remanded the matter for fresh
consideration to the D.A. The appellant filed an appeal from the
above order only to the extent of not having considered
reinstatement since the termination was set aside. In Writ Appeal
No. 506 of 2011, a Division Bench directed the appellant to be
reinstated in 2012, subject to suitable action taken in accordance
with law. A Special Leave Petition filed by the Department was
rejected by this Court in 2014 which led to reinstatement of the
appellant in 2015 w.e.f. 10.07.1995. However, the order of
reinstatement also specified that the appellant would be under
deemed suspension w.e.f. 10.07.1995 thus, again effectively
keeping the appellant away from serving as an officer of the
CRPF.
10. The appellant’s ordeal continued without any effective
orders being passed by the D.A and pursuant to a proceeding
initiated under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the RTI Act),
the appellant was informed that the D.A had decided to impose
Page 6 of 17
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10712 of 2025
a minor penalty and the file had been referred to the Department
of Personnel and Training (DoPT). In a Writ Petition filed seeking
communication of the order, on the directions of the Court, an
order was produced by the respondents which again terminated
the appellant. Further proceedings initiated under the RTI Act
brought to light the flippant pen-pushing which commenced
after the directions issued to the D.A. to reconsider the matter.
11. As we notice from Annexure P-3 order, the response issued
under the RTI Act revealed that the Director General (D.G) on
reconsideration had opined that the penalty of removal from
service was harsh since the delinquent’s case for leave was not
properly handled. It was also found that the handing over of
charge, which was Article 1 in the charge sheet, was on oral
directions of the Commandant. It was also noticed with reference
to Article 2 that the statement of the Commandant regarding the
oral direction was not recorded in the inquiry and that the
delinquent had submitted medical certificates in support of his
overstay on leave. The recommendation of the D.G-CRPF when
referred to the UPSC, it was opined that since no new facts have
been brought on record, further consultation with the
Page 7 of 17
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10712 of 2025
Commission is not necessary. It was also advised that either the
earlier recommendation be accepted or an independent view
taken by the D.A. The UPSC too erred insofar as the mitigating
circumstances were brought on record by the D.G.-CRPF.
12. While the D.A finalized a minor penalty of reduction by one
stage for a period of three years without cumulative effect not
adversely affecting pension, an Under Secretary in the Ministry
of Home Affairs (MHA) prepared a note interpreting the advice
of the UPSC as a ‘ disagreement ’ with that of the D.A and referred
it to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). Another
Under Secretary in the DoPT then requested the MHA to cancel
the penalty imposed, “in the light of the facts of the case and in the
light of the UPSC’s reasoning in the matter and convey a
considered decision” . Subsequently, an opinion was sought from
the Ministry of Law and Justice (MLJ) which concurred with the
MHA leading to the DoPT placing the matter before the Prime
Minister invoking Entry 39(2) of the Third Schedule to the
Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. A
decision was taken to ‘ resolve the disagreement with the UPSC
and DA ’ by agreeing with the advice of the UPSC for imposing
Page 8 of 17
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10712 of 2025
penalty of removal from service, resulting in the second order
terminating the appellant from service.
13. In this context, we have to notice the specific stand taken
by the respondent, Union of India with reference to OM No.
39023/02/2006-Estt. (B) dated 05.12.2006, in the earlier round
before this Court. The portion emphasized, extracted in
Annexure P4 order, brings forth two different aspects: one
regarding disciplinary or other matters (other than appointment
cases) and then, cases of appointment. With reference to the
former when there is disagreement with the opinion of UPSC, the
matter has to be placed before the Committee of Secretaries and
only thereafter submitted to the Minister-in-Charge/Prime
Minister. Insofar as appointments are concerned, the matter is to
be directly placed before the Minister-in-Charge/Prime
Minister. Admittedly, the present case is one of disciplinary
inquiry and it ought to have been placed first before the
Committee of Secretaries and then before the Prime
Minister/Minister-in-Charge. This procedure, of consideration
of ‘disagreement’ by a Committee of Secretaries was not only
followed, but more importantly the advice of the UPSC does not
Page 9 of 17
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10712 of 2025
in fact bring forth any ‘disagreement’, since categorically the
advice was to accept the earlier recommendation or to take an
independent view, leaving the discretion to the D.A.
14. The Division Bench of the High Court in Annexure P-3 held
that the sequence of events resulting in the termination order of
the year 2018 brings forth not only the erroneous procedure
adopted by the respondents but also the misplaced
interpretation of the Under Secretary in the MHA. The entire
procedure interfering with the clear finding of the D.A, who was
the appointing authority, competent to impose the penalty was
set aside and the minor penalty as directed by the D.A was held
to be the proper penalty to be imposed against the appellant. It
was also directed, as noticed above, that the date of
reinstatement will relate back to the date of his initial termination
and fixation of seniority and all consequential benefits, including
promotion would be granted.
15. Annexure P-3, as we noticed, was affirmed by Annexure
P-4 by this Court by order dated 07.12.2020. The appellant then
filed a contempt case, pending which a review D.P.C was
convened on 14.03.2023 to consider the case of the appellant for
Page 10 of 17
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10712 of 2025
promotion as Deputy Commandant which was also granted only
on a notional basis that too w.e.f. 17.10.2021; when purportedly
the three year period of the minor punishment imposed on him,
reckoned from 16.10.2018, the date of the second termination,
came to an end. It was also held that the appellant would not be
eligible for consideration for further promotions since the
essential eligibility, of five-year residency coupled with two
years mandatory field service and completion of pre-
promotional course, was not satisfied.
16. A learned Single Judge considered the contempt case and
found the Inspector General of Police (Pers.) and DIG (Pers),
who held the office on 22.03.2023 guilty of contempt but afforded
an opportunity of six weeks to the contemnors, to purge
themselves of the contempt alleged by promoting the appellant
to the post of I.G. as on the date of his immediate Junior. An
appeal was filed by the respondents in which a Division Bench
found the appeal to be not maintainable since an appeal would
lie only against an order imposing punishment for contempt. The
appellant filed a Civil Appeal before this Court. By order dated
29.07.2024, this Court relied on the decision in Midnapore
Page 11 of 17
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10712 of 2025
1
Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda and found that the
Division Bench had failed to consider the two aspects of the case;
first, the finding of guilt as against the contemnors and then the
finding of the appellant being entitled to promotion to the rank
of I.G. Though the first aspect was not amenable to an appeal
under Section 19, the second aspect was amenable to appeal as
per the cited decision, held this Court while remanding the
matter back to the Division Bench, leading to the impugned
order in the above appeal.
17. The impugned order found that the appellant cannot claim
the post of I.G. or consideration to the said promotional post
since he does not satisfy the essential eligibility condition,
noticed above; with which we fully agree. Further, it was also
found that his immediate junior, whose seniority had been
settled was not a party in the proceedings, the directions prayed
for adversely prejudicing the said Officer’s seniority; which we
need not comment upon. The Division Bench hence rejected the
appeal.
1
(2006) 5 SCC 399
Page 12 of 17
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10712 of 2025
18. As of now, the appellant is retired from service, which
actually spans over nearly a little short of four decades,
unfortunately cut short thus rendering him unemployed for more
than two decades and putting to jeopardy a promising career
which otherwise the appellant could have had. We are hence
concerned in adjusting the equities insofar as the appellant
being denied fruitful employment and a promising career
because of the callous indifference to the repeated directions of
the High Court to reconsider the issue and also the apathetic
pen-pushing which led to the opinion of the competent authority
being digressed from based on a wrong understanding of the
response of the UPSC; at the second instance, when UPSC clearly
permitted the D.A to take an independent view.
19. It is trite that a judicial review under Article 226, of an
order passed in a departmental inquiry holding the delinquent
guilty and imposing punishment, is not concerned with the
merits of the case and is more on procedure; unless the decision
is without authority or vitiated by patent arbitrariness,
extraneous considerations or is blatantly perverse. It is bearing
in mind the trite principle that the constitutional courts restrain
Page 13 of 17
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10712 of 2025
themselves from interfering with the discretion cast on the D.A
either on the finding with respect to the misconduct or the
punishment imposed, which primarily is the prerogative of the
employer. However, the authorities; be it the original authority
or the appellate authority, should be cautious to consider the
matter and not merely reiterate the earlier findings in
mechanical compliance of the directions issued, when a
Constitutional Courts directs reconsideration. Furthermore,
when the D.A at the second instance clearly listed out the
mitigating circumstances requiring imposition of only a minor
penalty, which were digressed from based on a query initiated
by an Under Secretary.
20. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that a quietus has to
be put to the matter. Annexure P-3 judgment clearly found the
imposition of minor penalty as decided by the D.A. We cannot
agree with the learned Additional Solicitor General that the rigor
of punishment commenced from 16.10.2018; the date on which
the second termination order was passed. When the High Court
by Annexure P-3 directed imposition of a minor penalty as
decided by the D.A, it necessarily has to relate back to the date
Page 14 of 17
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10712 of 2025
of appellant’s initial termination i.e., 10.07.1995. The rigor of
punishment thus, would be over on 10.07.1998 and since the
appellant was out of service it does not visit any consequence on
him since only notional benefits are given during the said
period, the reduction by one stage being non-cumulative and
leaves the pension unaffected.
21. Hence, when the review DPC was held on 14.03.2023 and
the appellant was promoted as Deputy Commandant w.e.f.
17.10.2021; it cannot be made notional and it has to be with all
attendant benefits, that too from the date on which he was
eligible for promotion i.e.; the date on which others were
promoted through the DPC, review of which was carried out.
The appellant shall hence be promoted from the date on which
the other Assistant Commandants were promoted as per the
original DPC; of which review DPC was held on 14.03.2023. The
appellant shall be paid the entire back wages from the date of
entitlement to promotion as a Deputy Commandant, as per the
review DPC held on 14.03.2023.
22. If such date of promotion is after 30.11.2012; when the
Division Bench of the High Court directed his reinstatement in
Page 15 of 17
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10712 of 2025
Writ Appeal No.506 of 2011, he shall be entitled to the entire
back wages from such date till his retirement as Deputy
Commandant. If the promotion date falls prior to 30.11.2012, then
necessarily the period prior to 30.11.2012 shall be notional and
from 30.11.2012 the back wages shall be paid. The retirement
benefits also shall be computed counting the increments as
entitled in the higher pay scale and the arrears paid of the said
benefits including the arrears of pension.
23. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we are also
inclined to quash the contempt proceedings, though a case is
made out, but on the condition of payment of Rs.10 lakhs to the
appellant defraying the costs of the prolonged litigation
spanning more than a quarter century. The cost shall be paid
within two months, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate
of 7%.
24. The arrears of pay shall be computed and a speaking order
issued to the appellant, specifying the date of his promotion to
the post of Deputy Commandant the pay fixation, increments
granted and arrears disbursed within a period of six months from
Page 16 of 17
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10712 of 2025
today, failing which the same shall also carry interest at the rate
of 7% from the date of expiry of the six months’ period.
25. The appeal stands allowed, leaving the parties to suffer
their costs.
26. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
.……………………………... J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)
..………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 21, 2026.
Page 17 of 17
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10712 of 2025