dhananjay kumar pandey v. union of india & ors

The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging recommendations of the Departmental Rehabilitation Board and a Medical Invalidation Board proposing to remove a CRPF personnel from service for alcohol dependence, directing the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on his pending reply within three weeks while protecting him from adverse action for a further three weeks.  

​Key Proposition and Catchwords

Where a statutory invalidation notice has been issued and a reply filed by a member of a uniformed force, but no final decision has been rendered by the authorities, a writ petition challenging the underlying medical and rehabilitation board recommendations is premature, and the appropriate course is to direct the competent authority to consider the employee's contentions and statutory guidelines before taking a final decision.  

​CRPF - Standing Order No. 04/2008 - Para 22.5(f) - Disposal of cases of Alcohol Dependence/Drug Abuse in paramilitary forces - Whether progressive medical classification and response to treatment must be considered? - Held, yes. (Para 6)  

​Policy for 'Rehabilitation of Disabled CAPFs Personnel' - Para 4 - Whether rehabilitation and assignment of commensurate duties must be assessed? - Held, yes. (Para 7)  

​Background / Synopsis:

​The petitioner was appointed in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) after clearing medical examinations.  

​In 2024, during his posting at RTC, Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh, a conduct report recorded that he was performing assigned duties and abstaining from alcohol.  

​The Departmental Rehabilitation Board (DRB) considered the petitioner for Alcohol Dependence Syndrome between 22.05.2024 and 29.05.2024, and declared him unfit for further service.  

​Following a favorable assessment report dated 08.04.2026, the petitioner was examined by the Medical Invalidation Board (MIB) on 25.07.2026, which recorded continued alcohol intake posing a threat to himself and others.  

​An Invalidation Notice dated 23.09.2026 was served proposing his removal from service, to which the petitioner submitted a reply on 01.10.2026.  

​The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the DRB and MIB recommendations and the invalidation notice.  

​Issues For Consideration:

​Whether the writ petition is premature in light of the pending decision on the petitioner's reply to the invalidation notice.

​Whether the respondents failed to follow the mandatory procedural requirements under Standing Order No. 04/2008 and the Policy for Rehabilitation of Disabled CAPFs Personnel dated 14.12.2023.

​Submissions Of Parties:

Petitioner / Appellant:

​Para 22.5(f) of Standing Order No. 04/2008 mandates progressive medical classification based on response to treatment, behavioral reports, and evidence of relapse, keeping responsive cases in a temporary low medical category.  

​Contemporaneous 2024 unit reports recording eight months of abstinence and satisfactory performance as a Bugler were ignored.  

​The DRB recommendations violated para 4 of the Policy for 'Rehabilitation of Disabled CAPFs Personnel' dated 14.12.2023, which requires assessing whether personnel can be rehabilitated by assigning commensurate duties.  

​Respondent / State:

​The writ petition is premature as the respondents have yet to take a final decision on the show cause invalidation notice after considering the reply.  

​A final decision would be made within two weeks.  

​Court's Observations & Analysis:

Re: Issue: Premature nature of the petition

​The petitioner was served with an Invalidation Notice dated 23.09.2026 and filed a reply on 01.10.2026.  

​No final decision had been taken by the respondents on the notice prior to the filing of the petition.  

​The submission made by the learned Senior Panel Counsel that the petition is premature is correct to this extent.

Notable Observations: "It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case."  

​Decision & Directions:

​The writ petition and pending applications are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take a final decision on the Invalidation Notice dated 23.09.2026.  

​The respondents must consider the petitioner's reply, contentions regarding Para 22.5(f) of Standing Order No. 04/2008, Para 4 of the Policy dated 14.12.2023, and other behavioral conduct reports.  

​A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed within a period of three weeks and communicated to the petitioner within one week of the decision.  

​If the decision is adverse, it shall not be given effect for three weeks from the date of communication, enabling the petitioner to pursue legal remedies.  

​Legal Provisions Discussed & Precedents Cited:

​Constitution of India - Article 226  

​Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 151  

​Standing Order No. 04/2008 - Para 22.5(f)  

​Policy for 'Rehabilitation of Disabled CAPFs Personnel' dated 14.12.2023 - Para 4  

​None discussed  

​Case Details:

​Case / Party Name: Dhananjay Kumar Pandey (Through His Wife) v. Union of India & Ors.  

​Case Number(s): W.P.(C) 15110/2026 & CM APPL. 71013/2026, CM APPL. 71014/2026  

​Coram / Judges: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Pal Singh (Division Bench)  

​Counsel Appearances: Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhargava and Mr. Satyarth Sinha, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. Manish Kumar, SPC, Ms. Pragya Bharti, GP with Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Mr. Azad Kumar Singh and Mr. Luv Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents.  

​Disclaimer: This summary is an editorial aid and does not form part of the judgment. Refer to the original judgment before citing.

​Rating: 3/10

Primary Archetype: Procedural / Practical

Category / Tags: Criminal Law, Other Legal Matters