Mr. Chirayu Jain, Adv v. DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL DEFENCE, GOVERNMENTOF NCT OF DELHI ANR

Judgment

1. Both the writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the vires of Section 6(2) and Section 14(1) of the Civil Defence Act, 19681 on the ground of non- justiciability of an order of dismissal under Section 6(2) of the Act, presumably since the same cannot be challenged in any court of law by the operation of Section 14(1) of the Act, thereby, purportedly enforcing an absolute bar on judicial review.

2. The common background of both writ petitions is that the petitioners served as Civil Defence Volunteers/ Members2 on voluntary and honorary basis in the Civil Defence Corps3. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by their dismissal from service or “call-out duty”. They are present before this Court seeking, inter alia, reinstatement of service and damages for the loss of duty allowance with effect from the date of discharge.

3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4233 of 2022, seeks setting aside of impugned orders of dismissal and rejection of his appeal thereof dated 30.04.2020 and 28.10.2020 respectively. Further, as far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16081 of 2023 is concerned, he has assailed the following impugned orders: (i) the initial dismissal order dated

23.03.2020, (ii) the order dated 28.10.2020, rejecting the appeal preferred, allegedly, without citing reasons, and (iii) the order dated

07.08.2023, whereby Respondent No. 1, in pursuance of the order of 1 “the Act”, hereinafter 2 “CDV”, hereinafter 3 “CDC” hereon Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:09.12.2025 19:14:28 W.P.(C) 4233/2022 & W.P.(C) 16081/2023 this Court in previous round of litigation, re-considered the appeal and upheld the initial dismissal of the petitioner.

4. Their common grievance pertains to their dismissal from service/call-out duty under Section 6(2) of the said Act, i.e., dismissal simpliciter, without assigning any reasons or awarding them a chance to be heard. They are further aggrieved by the alleged absolute bar created by virtue of Section 6(2) operating with Section 14(1) of the Act, i.e., thereby, preventing them from availing any judicial remedy.

5. The controversy which falls for adjudication before the Court in both writ petitions is essentially the same, hence, we deem it apposite to dispose of both petitions by this common judgment. Nonetheless, as both petitions are grounded in their own distinct factual backdrop, it is appropriate at this juncture to advert to them separately. FACTUAL MATRIX W.P. (C) No. 4233 of 2022

6. As far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4233 of 2022 is concerned, he claims to be a member/volunteer of the CDC. He had joined the CDC on 28.07.2017 bearing enrolment no. 177/3082. The petitioner seems to have served for approximately two years on “call- out duty” before his dismissal under Section 6(2) of the Act vide impugned order dated 30.04.2020 issued by the Office of Respondent No. 1. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:09.12.2025 19:14:28 W.P.(C) 4233/2022 & W.P.(C) 16081/2023

7. It is the case of the petitioner that in February-April of 2020, owing to his ill-health, he had sought leave vide representation dated

19.03.2020 to the Tehsildar, Rohini, along with supporting medical documents. However, vide office order dated 14.04.2020 passed by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner (Northwest), Kanjhawala, the petitioner was deployed on COVID-19 duty to assist officers in the issuance of Passes/E-Passes for certain class of persons and vehicles who were allowed movement during lockdown, which the petitioner could not join, purportedly, due to his medical condition. The petitioner thereafter sent a representation dated 19.04.2020 to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate4, Rohini, reiterating his ill-health and inability to join the duty assigned. However, once again, vide order dated

21.04.2020 issued by the Office of District Magistrate5, Northwest, the petitioner was deployed at the Quarantine Centre, EWS flats, DUSIB, Sultanpuri, New Delhi for the morning shift from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. On the same day, the petitioner had yet again sent a representation to the learned DM, Northwest, reiterating his health condition and consequent inability to join duty.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that, despite the abovementioned representations, he was dismissed from membership on 30.04.2020 (“first impugned order”) by Respondent No. 1 under Section 6(2) of the Act, allegedly “on account of his inability to resume duty”, along with the direction to deposit his membership certificate, identity card and other related documents in the District Civil Office, Northwest, 4 “SDM” hereon 5 “DM” hereon Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:09.12.2025 19:14:28 W.P.(C) 4233/2022 & W.P.(C) 16081/2023 Kanjhawala, Delhi upon such dismissal. However, the said order did not stipulate any reasons for such dismissal.

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal, the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 7 of the Act on 18.05.2020 before the learned DM/Controller Civil Defence, Northwest District and the learned SDM, Rohini, Northwest. In the said appeal, he cited health reasons for non-joining of duty and stated that he came to resume service on

30.04.2020 but was issued the dismissal order on the same day. He further stated that he was the sole breadwinner of his family and was reliant on the income from his duty as a CDV.

10. Since no decision for the abovementioned appeal followed, the petitioner submitted further representations learned DM/Controller of Civil Defence on 17.07.2020 requesting that his appeal be considered. The petitioner, then filed another appeal before the Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) on 20.07.2020, seeking reinstatement. Meanwhile, it is also stated that Respondent No. 1 had sent a communication dated 22.09.2020 to the learned DM seeking information on the status of petitioner’s appeal. Thereafter, in response, it was stated by the petitioner that the appeal was preferred on 20.07.2020 i.e., after 81 days from discharge on 30.04.2020, and was rejected as barred by limitation under Section 7 of the Act, which prescribes a thirty-day limitation to file an appeal from the date of dismissal. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:09.12.2025 19:14:28 W.P.(C) 4233/2022 & W.P.(C) 16081/2023

11. Be that as it may, the appeal came to be rejected vide an order dated 28.10.2020 (“second impugned order”). The petitioner contended that no reasons were furnished nor was he given an opportunity to be heard. Thereafter, it is made out from the record that the petitioner filed a complaint on the Public Grievance Portal on

04.03.2021 alleging that he was dismissed without notice and without furnishing any reasons thereof, the said complaint was closed on

20.05.2021 with the remark that the petitioner would be notified when a vacancy arises. A subsequent grievance was filed on 02.08.2021 which was closed on the same day directing the petitioner to visit the office of Respondent No. 1 with relevant documents.

12. In the light of the above circumstances, the petitioner seeks intervention of this Court on the grounds that his dismissal was not simpliciter per se but was, in effect, stigmatic in nature and violative of principles of natural justice. W.P. (C) No. 16081 of 2023

13. As far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16081 of 2023 is concerned, the present petition appears to be a second round of litigation. The petitioner herein, became a member of the CDC in 2014, having enrolment no. 178/2644 under Respondent No. 1 and served on “call-out” duty for five years in the District Office, Civil Defence, Northwest District, Delhi. The petitioner was also the Secretary of a Non-Governmental Organisation by the name and style Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:09.12.2025 19:14:28 W.P.(C) 4233/2022 & W.P.(C) 16081/2023 of ‘Jai Santoshi Maa Educational Social Welfare Association’6 situated in Kirari, Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner that in March 2020, while he was deployed at the COVID-19 Centre at Sultanpuri, he came to be dismissed from service under Section 6(2) of the Act vide

impugned order dated 23.03.2020 (“first impugned order”) without attributing any reasons.

14. Following his dismissal, the petitioner allegedly sought reasons for the same and was orally informed by the Deputy Collector Civil Defence/SDM, Rohini, that on 23.03.2020, FIR No. 0114/2020 was lodged against two executives of the JSM NGO, one Deepak Kumar and one Rishi Pal, under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code, 18607. Since the petitioner was the Secretary of the said NGO, continual of his service would have been undesirable for the CDC. The allegations made out in the said FIR were that the accused persons were making and selling local face masks during lockdown which did not constitute essential services/commodities.

15. Aggrieved by his dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 7 of the Act before the learned DM/Controller Civil Defence on 18.04.2020 (stamped on 21.04.2020), contending that he was discharged without furnishing grounds of such dismissal and that his family depended on him. He further stated that he was not mentioned in the FIR and was on CDC duty at the relevant time. While the said appeal was pending, he filed another appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) on 01.06.2020, seeking Signature Not Verified 6 “JSM NGO” hereon 7 “IPC” hereon Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:09.12.2025 19:14:28 W.P.(C) 4233/2022 & W.P.(C) 16081/2023 reinstatement, and also preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor8 of Delhi on 08.09.2020 on similar grounds.

16. The appeal filed under Section 7 of the Act was decided against the petitioner on 28.10.2020 (“second impugned order”) by the Office of Directorate of Civil Defence, purportedly, without stipulating any reasons and, as alleged, without giving him an opportunity to be heard. Subsequently, the petitioner sought a RTI (Right to Information) application regarding the rejection of his appeal. In the RTI reply dated 23.12.2020, it was stated that the appeal dated 01.06.2020 before learned Divisional Commissioner (Revenue), was dismissed on grounds of limitation i.e., it was dismissed as time-barred because it was filed 70 days post the dismissal dated 23.03.2020 i.e., beyond the 30-day limit under Section 7 of the Act.

17. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal, the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No. 11292 of 2021 on 27.09.2021 (first round of litigation), wherein vide an order dated 28.04.2023, the said writ petition was disposed of with the observation of this Court that the appellate authority acted in ignorance of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for relaxation of limitation period during COVID-19. Thus, this Court, in the facts of the said case, directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh within 8 weeks after affording him an opportunity to be heard. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:09.12.2025 19:14:28 8 “LG” hereon W.P.(C) 4233/2022 & W.P.(C) 16081/2023

18. According to the petitioner, since the appellate authority did not take any action in pursuance of the abovementioned order of this Court; the petitioner sent a representation on 22.05.2023 to the learned DM/Controller of Civil Defence, requesting that his appeal be decided as per the direction of this Court. The petitioner, contended in the said appeal that his dismissal was due to the FIR having been lodged against 2 members of the NGO where he was Secretary, although he was neither named in the said FIR, nor was he present at the relevant time, since he was on CDC duty.

19. In any case, the appeal came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 07.08.2023 (“third impugned order”), upholding the earlier dismissal order dated 23.03.2020, purportedly without affording a hearing to the petitioner. The said appeal under Section 6(2) of the Act was rejected citing an inquiry before the learned SDM wherein the petitioner was allegedly found to be involved “in an act of production and selling of illegal face masks in collaboration with NGO named JSM”.

20. Aggrieved by their dismissals under Section 6(2) of the Act and subsequent rejection of appeal under Section 7 of the Act, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions respectively before this Court seeking appropriate relief(s). Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:09.12.2025 19:14:28 W.P.(C) 4233/2022 & W.P.(C) 16081/2023 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

21. Mr. Chirayu Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that their respective dismissals were unjust since notice was not issued to them, nor were the reasons for dismissal furnished to them and hence, their right to a fair hearing was violated, thereby being violative of principles of natural justice.

22. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 4233 of 2022 argued that the appeal under Section 7 was initially filed on

18.05.2020, which was well within the 30-day limitation period prescribed under the said provision and hence, was not time-barred. In support, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the representation dated 22.09.2020 preferred by Respondent No. 1 seeking appraisal on the status of the said appeal dated 18.05.2020, which, according to the learned Counsel, amounts to acknowledging/admitting the existence of the said appeal to be filed within the period of limitation.

23. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 16081 of 2023 submitted that the petitioner had been in continuous service since 2014 and, that the honorarium earned from the call-out duty as a CDV was his only source of income during COVID-19. It was contended that his dismissal solely rested on his position as the Secretary of JSM NGO, which was identified in the FIR along with two other executives of the NGO. However, the petitioner was not named in the said FIR, and no direct role was attributed to him. Moreover, it was pointed that such engagement/service does not fall Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:09.12.2025 19:14:28 W.P.(C) 4233/2022 & W.P.(C) 16081/2023 under the disqualified services stipulated under Section 5(2) of the Act. Therefore, holding an office in JSM NGO does not render the petitioner ineligible to serve as a CDV. It was also emphasised that the learned Magistrate did not take cognizance of the FIR since an offence under Section 188 of the IPC mandates an accompanying written complaint from the concerned public servant i.e., Hon’ble LG of Delhi in this case, to enable a Court to take cognizance, which was absent. It was also submitted by the learned Counsel that impugned orders dated

23.03.2020 and 07.08.2023 were non-speaking orders and cryptic; the latter did not disclose necessary facts to ascertain the involvement of the petitioner or attribute a specific role to him. Further, he was not afforded a proper hearing or an opportunity to peruse the material against him, hence, the said orders were violative of principles of natural justice.

24. It was further urged that the petitioner neither committed any misconduct nor did he engage in any act rendering his service in the CDC undesirable. Further, it was submitted that the appeal under Section 7 of the Act was initially filed on 18.04.2020 (stamped on

21.04.2020) i.e., well-within the limitation period of thirty days from the date of dismissal i.e., 23.03.2020 in that case. COGNATE SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS CONCERNING THE CHALLENGE TO VIRES

25. It was submitted that dismissals under Section 6(2) were permissible only in cases not covered by Section 6(1) of the Act. It Signature Not Verified was urged that although it has been portrayed by the Respondents that Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:09.12.2025 19:14:28 W.P.(C) 4233/2022 & W.P.(C) 16081/2023 the petitioners have been dismissed under Section 6(1) of the Act, however in its actual sense, the petitioners were dismissed on grounds of misconduct as defined in Standing Order No. 01/2019 dated

13.02.2019, which includes disobeying lawful orders of superiors under Clause 4(iii) of the Order, which ought to fall under Section 6(1) of the Act. It was submitted that indiscipline also comes within the meaning of “misconduct” by placing reliance on Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab9. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted that the dismissal of petitioners constituted a stigmatic dismissal in substance under Section 6(1) of the Act, but it was guised as a dismissal simpliciter under Section 6(2) of the Act to circumvent the procedure of inquiry and the opportunity to be heard as mandated under Section 6(1) of the Act.

26. The learned Counsel underscored that the failure to hold due inquiry before the dismissal of petitioners was untenable in law. Reliance was placed on paragraphs 31 & 32 of the decision in Jarnail Singh v State of Punjab10, wherein the Court criticised the practice of cloaking punitive dismissals as simpliciter dismissals without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Further reliance was placed upon V.P. Ahuja v State of Punjab11, wherein the Court set aside the dismissal order holding that it was ex facie stigmatic in nature.

27. The learned Counsel apprised the Court as to how dismissal under Section 6(2) of the Act, in itself, constituted a stigmatic