Zahid Mahmood v. Union of India and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Delhi High Court oral disposal of W.P.(C) 10554/2021 / CM APPL. 28061/2024: compulsory-retirement penalty order dated 25 May 2010 (DIG (Pers), CISF, conveying the President of India's decision as Disciplinary Authority) quashed and set aside because it ignored the petitioner's reply to the Inquiry Report and lacked independent reasons; Inquiry Report sustained; matter remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for a reasoned de novo punishment order due by 30 November 2025, with the penalty capped, additional submissions allowed within four days, rights reserved and monetary benefits deferred; petitioner appeared in person; respondents represented by Mr. Farman Ali, CGSC; no costs awarded.
What did the court decide?
With consent of counsel: (a) impugned order dated 25 May 2010 quashed and set aside; (b) Inquiry Report sustained, no interference; (c) matter remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh (de novo) order on punishment; (d) petitioner permitted additional written submissions within four days, to be considered in the de novo decision along with his existing reply; (f) de novo order to be passed on or before 30 November 2025; (g) petitioner's rights reserved if still aggrieved; (h) any punishment in the de novo proceedings not to exceed the punishment already awarded; (i) monetary benefits to abide by the de novo decision; no orders as to costs.