Dr Mandeep Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 16 Mar 2026 · 2026:DHC:2177-DB

V. Kameswar Rao; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

W.P.(C) 3324/2026

2026:DHC:2177-DB

administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging disciplinary proceedings for alleged sexual misconduct, directing the Internal Complaints Committee to complete the enquiry within three months while leaving all contentions open for consideration.

Full Text

W.P.(C) 3324/2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16.03.2026

W.P.(C) 3324/2026 & CM APPL. 16073-16074/2026
DR MANDEEP SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anshul Kumar and Mr. Manish Kumar Mishra, Advocates

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Pratima N Lakra, CGSC with Ms. Upanita Soumyadarshini, Advocate for R-1
Ms. Partima N Lakhra, CGSC and Ms Upanita Soumyadarshini, Advocate with Mr Vinod Sawant, Law Officer, Mr Avinash Yadav, 2 I C VIG., Insp
Athurv and Mr Ramniwas Yadav, CRPF

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers: -

“A. Issue a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Memorandum of Charge dated 07.08.2024 issued against the Petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, along with all proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that the allegations contained in Article–I of the said Memorandum of Charge, even if accepted in their SHARMA 11:48 entirety, do not disclose any act constituting sexual harassment or misconduct under Rule 3 or Rule 3-C of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and therefore the continuation of disciplinary proceedings is without jurisdiction in absence of any foundational misconduct;

B. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the communication dated 04.02.2026 whereby the Petitioner’s representation alleging bias in the conduct of the enquiry was rejected.

C. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the original records of the departmental enquiry initiated pursuant to the Memorandum of Charge dated 07.08.2024, including the proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Authority and the order dated 04.02.2026 rejecting the Petitioner’s representation alleging bias, for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court, so that the legality and propriety of the impugned proceedings may be examined.

D. Pass any other appropriate order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the Petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case, and to which the Petitioner as in law may be found entitled to, including the incidental, consequential and necessary reliefs.”

2. The grievance of the petitioner primarily is with regard to a Memorandum of Charge dated 07.08.2024 issued to him, which is pending before the Internal Complaints Committee, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is arbitrary and malicious in law as there is no misconduct that too of sexual harassment.

3. During the course of hearing, it transpired that the petitioner had filed two complaints of bias against the Chairman of the Internal Complaints Committee and also against other members of the Committee.

4. The first complaint against the Chairman of the Internal Complaints SHARMA 11:48 Committee has been rejected. Insofar as the second complaint is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner states as the petitioner wants the culmination of the proceedings at the earliest, he shall withdraw the second complaint which has been filed by the petitioner, forthwith.

5. If that be so, on the petitioner withdrawing the second complaint, the Internal Complaints Committee shall ensure that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are completed within a period of three months from today.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to the Court that the petitioner shall render all assistance for the disposal of the proceedings within a period of three months as directed by this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the Committee shall ensure that the proceedings are completed within three months from today.

8. In view of the aforesaid position, nothing further survives in this petition. The petition, along with pending application(s), if any, is disposed of as such.

9. All the contentions of the petitioner are left open to be urged before the Internal Complaints Committee.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J MARCH 16, 2026 SHARMA 11:48

Dr Mandeep Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation