Ranjan Pratap Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 28.01.2026
Judgment delivered on : 19.06.2026
Judgment uploaded on : As per Digital Signature~
+ W.P.(C) 4096/2021 CM APPL. 12485/2021 CM APPL. 42622/2021
+ W.P.(C) 11716/2021, CM APPL. 36206/2021, CM APPL.
51414/2023, CM APPL. 51515/2023, CM APPL. 55036/2023, CM
APPL. 55160/2023
RANJAN PRATAP SINGH .....Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in these case
For the Petitioners : Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, Mr. Naveen
Kumar Vashisht, Mr. Tarunveer Singh
Taggar and Ms. Yogita Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Ms. Nidhi
Raman, CGSC, Mr Rajeev Khatana, SPC,
Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Akash Mishra, Mr.
Arnav Mittal, Mr. Naman, Mr. Subham
Sharma and Yesvardhan, Advocates and
Mr. Devesh Tripathi, DC, Mr. A. Mohan
Krishna, AC, and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Insp.,
CISF in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. These two petitions have been filed by the petitioner primarily
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.06.2026
17:17:38
WP(C) Nos.4096 & 11716 of 2021 Page 1 of 9

challenging his suspension and initiation of the departmental proceedings
under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1965 [CCS(CCA) Rules].
2. As common facts arise for consideration in both these petitions and
the issues which need to be considered are primarily related to identical
foundational facts, we deem it appropriate to decide both these petitions by
this common order.
3. W.P(C) No.4096/2021 has been filed with the following prayers:-
“(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari based on which the
Respondents have issued the impugned Memorandum
24.09.2020 proposing to hold Departmental
Proceedings against the Petitioner as well as the
records based on which the Respondents have rejected
the representations submitted by the Petitioner against
such action vide orders dated 14.12.2020 as well as
16.03.2021 and thereafter quash the same:
(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus/Prohibition in the form
of direction to the Respondents to await the final
outcome of the ongoing criminal proceedings before
taking any further decision regarding any further
departmental action on the same facts.”
4. The challenge in this petition is primarily to the charge-sheet dated
24.09.2020 and also order dated 14.12.2020 whereby the plea of the
petitioner for furnishing him the documents relating to a criminal case and
order dated 16.03.2021 whereby the representation of the petitioner for
giving a personal hearing before initiating departmental enquiry before the
disciplinary authority was rejected. By way of memorandum/charge-sheet
dated 24.09.2020, the respondents have initiated departmental proceedings
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.06.2026
17:17:38
WP(C) Nos.4096 & 11716 of 2021 Page 2 of 9

under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules whereby two articles of charge have
been framed against the petitioner, which we reproduce as under:-
“ Article-I
That Shri Ranjan Pratap Singh, Sr. Commandant,
CISF while on deputation with the Ministry of External
Affairs as Director with effect from 03.10.2017, he with
the help of his friend Shri Neeraj Chouhan, Advocate
hatched a conspiracy and planted 52 packets of drugs
(Charas) weighing 560 gm in a car bearing No. DL 12
CE 3713 of Shri Amit Savant, R/o House No.E-12,
Pragati Vihar Hostel, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi on
04.10.2019 while parked at his residence at Pragati
Vihar Hostel, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi thereby
indulging in an act of grave ommission & commission
amounting to moral turpitude.
Thereby, Shri Ranjan Prarap Singh, Sr. Commandant,
failed to maintain rectitude, upright conduct and
decorum expected from a Gazetted Officer, violated the
instructions contained in Rule 3 (1) (ii), (iii), (vi) and
(xviii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and acted in a
manner unbecoming of an officer of his status in an
Armed Force of the Union - CISF. Hence, the charge.
Article-II
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning
in the aforesaid office, the said Shri Ranjan Pratap
Singh, Sr. Commandant, CISF was arrested by the
Delhi Police on 10.10.2019 alongwith Shri Neeraj
Chouhan, Advocate for allegedly planting drugs in a
car belonging to Shri Amit Savant, Lead Consultant at
National E-Governance Division, Ministry of
Electronics & Information Technology, Electronics
Niketan, New Delhi. Delhi. Police lodged FIR
No.203/209 U/S 20/61/85 NDPS Act & r/w 120-B IPC
at PS Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
Thereby Shri Ranjan Pratap Singh, Sr. Commandant,
CISF engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.06.2026
17:17:38
WP(C) Nos.4096 & 11716 of 2021 Page 3 of 9

good image of the Force and has tarnished the image
of the Force. Thus, Shri Ranjan Pratap Singh, Sr.
Commandant violated the provision of Rule 3 (1) (ii),
(iii) (vi) & (xviii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964, failed
to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a
manner unbecoming of an Officer of his status in an
Armed Force of the Union, CISF.”
5. The submission of Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, learned counsel for
the petitioner is primarily relatable to Article II, which states that while the
petitioner was functioning as a Senior Commandant, CISF, he was arrested
by Delhi Police on 10.10.2019 along with an Advocate for planting drugs in
the car belonging to one Mr. Amit Savant.
6. He submitted that the arrest of the petitioner cannot be construed as a
misconduct to be a part of a charge-sheet. This submission of Mr. Mohanty
has to be read in the context of Article-I, which has been framed against the
petitioner. The charge therein is that, he with the help of his friend (an
Advocate), he hatched a conspiracy and planted 52 packets of drugs (charas)
weighing 560 grams in a car belonging to Mr Amit Savant. It was in that
connection that the petitioner was arrested by the Delhi Police, which
became the subject matter of Article-II.
7. The submission of Mr. Mohanty cannot be accepted for the reason
that, if the Article-II is read in conjunction with Article-I and also if Article-
II is read in totality, it follows that the petitioner having been arrested
because of Article-I, has resulted in tarnishing the good image of the Force.
8. There cannot be any contest that, if an employee lowers the image of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.06.2026
17:17:38
WP(C) Nos.4096 & 11716 of 2021 Page 4 of 9

the Force because of his omission or commission, surely the same can be the
subject matter of a charge-sheet.
9. A perusal of Article-II would reveal that the case of the respondents is
the petitioner’s arrest has tarnished the image of the Force, which resulted in
violation of the provisions of the Conduct Rules. So in that sense, the
Article-II shall be maintainable.
10. Though, we may clarify here that many grounds were pleaded in the
writ petition, as Mr. Mohanty had clearly stated that, he will press the
petition only on the aforesaid ground, we have not considered the other
grounds as raised in the petition.
W.P.(C) No.11716/2021
11. This petition being W.P.(C) No.11716/2021 has been filed with the
following prayers:-
“(i) issue rule nisi to the Respondents;
(ii) quash and set aside the Impugned Extension of
Suspension Order dated 10.06.2020 [Annexure: P-1]
as being bad in law;
(iii) consequently, quash and set aside the impugned
Extension of Suspension Order dated 26.11.2020
[Annexure: P-2] as being non-est in law;
(iv) quash and set aside the Impugned Suspension
Order dated 18.10.2019 [Annexure: P-3] as being non-
est in law;
(v) quash and set aside the impugned Posting Order
dated 19.12.2019 [Annexure: P-4] as being non-est in
law;
(vi) consequently quash and set aside the impugned
Letter of Rejection dated 31.07.2020 [Annexure: P-5]
and the Impugned Letter of Rejection dated 08.12.2020
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.06.2026
17:17:38
WP(C) Nos.4096 & 11716 of 2021 Page 5 of 9

[Annexure P-6] as being bad in law, being unreasoned
and non-speaking;
(vii) quash and set aside the impugned Repatriation
Order dated 18.10.2019 [Annexure: P-7] as being non-
est in law;
(viii) grant all consequential benefits of the same;
(ix) allow exemplary costs of the present Writ Petition
to the Petitioner against the Respondents; and
(x) pass such other and further order/(s) as may be
deemed just and appropriate in the facts,
circumstances and premises of the present case.”
12. While reserving the judgment on 28.01.2026, have passed the
following order:-
“1 We have heard Mr. Tushar Mohanty, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr Chetan Sharma,
learned ASG. Mr Mohanty's primary submission is that
the initial suspension order was passed without the
approval of the competent authority, and the review of
the suspension order was also beyond the permissible
date.
2. The relevant records have been produced before us
in a sealed cover. We have opened the sealed cover,
and perused the orders passed by the competent
authorities.
3. In fact, Mr. Mohanty has perused the order of the
competent authority that led to the suspension of the
petitioner. He is satisfied that the order was passed by
the competent authority.
4. We have also seen the order of the competent
authority reviewing the suspension order for a period
of 180 days. Having seen that, we are satisfied that the
order of the competent authority was passed, reviewing
the suspension order on 05.06.2020.
5. The two submissions made by Mr. Mohanty are that
the petitioner has been under suspension since 2020,
the respondents must consider revoking the suspension
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.06.2026
17:17:38
WP(C) Nos.4096 & 11716 of 2021 Page 6 of 9

order so that the petitioner can be useful to the force.
Even otherwise, the last posting of the petitioner being
in Delhi, the respondents cannot fix the headquarters
of the petitioner during the suspension, at Behror,
Rajasthan. He relies on the ground 4.26 of W.P.(C)
11716/2021 in support of his submission wherein he
has drawn our attention to the relevant instruction
which contemplate that the headquarters during
suspension shall be only the place where he was
posted, last.
6. One of the submissions of Mr. Mohanty is that even
the order extending the suspension upon review for a
period of 180 days has been issued beyond the period
of 90 days of initial suspension.
7. Orders reserved.”
13. We have also recorded the submission of Mr Mohanty, that he would
press his submission to mean that neither the order of suspension nor the
extension of suspension vide letters dated 10.06.2020 and 26.11.2020 were
passed by the competent authority.
14. We had called for the relevant records. On a perusal, it is clear that the
order of suspension was passed after it was approved by the competent
authority much before expiry of the initial period of suspension of 90 days.
15. Mr Mohanty being convinced that the orders have been passed by the
competent authority, submitted that the petitioner being under suspension
since 2020, appropriate for the respondents is to revoke the suspension of
the petitioner and utilise his services.
16. We are not in agreement with the said submission as the decision to
continue with the suspension is primarily on the competent authority. Given
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.06.2026
17:17:38
WP(C) Nos.4096 & 11716 of 2021 Page 7 of 9

the nature of charges which have been framed against the petitioner, this
Court does not find it appropriate to give any direction to the respondents in
that regard.
17. His other submission that the Headquarters (HQs) of the petitioner
during suspension has been wrongly fixed at Behror, Rajasthan though his
last place of posting was in Delhi, is also not appealing as in terms of Rule
10 read with DoPT O.M. No. 11012/17/2013-Estt.(A) dated 02.01.2014, the
same is permissible. The competent authority is within its right to fix the
HQs of the officer during suspension. In this case, the place having been
fixed at Behror, Rajasthan, the same cannot be contested. Both the pleas
urged by Mr Mohanty are without any merit.
18. It is necessary to state here that after we have reserved these petitions,
Mr Mohanty had mentioned the matters before us to contend that, during the
interregnum, the Trial Court considering the criminal case, has discharged
the petitioner of all the offences, which were alleged against him. He stated
that, in view of this development, the foundation for initiating the
departmental enquiry does not survive and consequently, the charge sheet
issued to the petitioner is required to be set aside.
19. We say nothing in so far as this submission is concerned, as it is a
settled position of law that the departmental enquiry can proceed, even if
there is acquittal of the employee in a criminal case. In any case, it is for the
disciplinary authority to take a call whether the conclusion drawn by the
Trial Court has any bearing in so far as the charge-sheet issued to the
petitioner is concerned. Nothing precludes the disciplinary authority to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.06.2026
17:17:38
WP(C) Nos.4096 & 11716 of 2021 Page 8 of 9

consider the judgment rendered by the Trial Court and take a decision on the
charge-sheet issued to the petitioner in accordance with law.
20. Similar is the position with respect to the suspension of the petitioner
because of the pendency of departmental enquiry against him. In this regard
also, we say nothing as the issue needs to be considered by the disciplinary
authority, who had passed the suspension order.
21. The petitioner is within his rights to raise all the pleas before the
disciplinary authority, in a representation, who shall consider the effect of
the judgment of the Trial Court and proceed in accordance with law.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the petitions are disposed of.
All pending applications stand disposed of as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JUNE 19, 2026 /sr
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.06.2026
17:17:38
WP(C) Nos.4096 & 11716 of 2021 Page 9 of 9