Summary: In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court ruled that retired officers can act as investigators, rejecting Parveen Kumar's appeal against his demotion by the Export Inspection Council. The court found that the disciplinary process was carried out properly.
On January 22, 2026, the Delhi High Court announced its decision on the appeals filed by Parveen Kumar and the Export Inspection Council. The case focused on disciplinary actions against Kumar, a Technical Officer, who was demoted due to charges of bad behavior.
The charges against Kumar included not following orders to report to Kanpur, submitting unclear travel plans, and using rude language in official communications. These actions were considered violations of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
"Kumar was charged with not following orders and using disrespectful language," the court documents stated.
Initially, Kumar resisted the charges and filed a legal petition, which he later withdrew. An investigation was conducted by a retired officer, Mr. Inder Singh, despite Kumar's objections that retired officers should not act as investigators.
The court, led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, decided that retired officers could indeed act as investigators. This decision was based on previous Supreme Court decisions and the interpretation of relevant rules.
"The term ‘public servant’ includes retired officers," the court noted, referring to past cases like Alok Kumar.
Kumar argued that he was not given a fair chance to present his side. However, the court found that all necessary steps were followed, including providing Kumar with the investigation report and allowing him to present his defense.
The court rejected Kumar's appeal, supporting the disciplinary actions taken by the Export Inspection Council. The decision emphasized that the investigation was conducted fairly and according to the rules.
"The disciplinary proceedings were conducted following the EIA Rules," the judgment concluded.
