Sexual misconduct: Why is CRPF hierarchy hell bent on protecting the perpetrators and punishing the victim

This is an ideal case which shows how even today we still have a jungle raj where might is right and lady officers have to face all sorts of indiscriminate, arbitrary, insensitive and revengeful action by their seniors in the male dominated uniformed services.

At the centre of the controversy is the role of the Director General, CRPF Gyanendra Pratap Singh a 1991- batch IPS officer from Assam-Meghalaya cadre who instead of taking action against the black-sheeps in his force, is reportedly hell bent on protecting the perpetrators and punishing the victim.  Allegedly DG, CRPF G P Singh, even went to the extent of challenging the young lady officer who is probably as old as his own daughter who is an ACP in Delhi Police, to complain against him to the Home Ministry if she dared to do so.

It remains to be seen if the highly decorated engineering graduate serving as Assistant Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) finally gets justice or is forced to resign in disgust by the careless and insensitive top-brass despite the weak and fragile promises or legal safeguards under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).

The only fault of the lady officer with an unblemished service record is that she dared to complain against sexual harassment and misconduct – unbecoming of the rank and status of her superiors.

The horror story in the life of the officer who joined CRPF in 2014 began nearly eight years later in 2022 when she was posted in 187 Battalion CRPF in Udhampur. Surinder Singh Rana – the then Commandant of the Battalion started passing leud and sexually loaded comments. She officially complained against this, but no action was taken.

Instead, Padmakar S. Ranpise, IPS (1995 batch, Odisha cadre), then Inspector General, Jammu Sector, CRPF (now ADG, CISF) allegedly crossed all limits of decency issued a defamatory and derogatory signal was against her on 31 July 2022 despite the fact that she had done nothing to deserve the slanderous rebuke – that too through open communication channels – which everyone could see. The was allegedly an unmindful attack on the officer’s reputation.

When she represented, the IG J&K Sector withdrew the signal and implicitly acknowledged the impropriety of the action in August 2022. But by then the damage had already been done by the unjustified character assassination. The officer formally complained about this to the DG and Special DG but no action was taken against the IG.

This is when the stress and strain in the professional life started affecting her married life and her husband – a CRPF officer who was also her batchmate filed for divorce which was granted.

However, despite the turmoil and damaging repercussions in her family life – her commandant Surinder Singh Rana once again started passing implied sexually comments and sending inappropriate messages on WhatsApp despite her protests. This went on for some time till she was totally fed-up and filed a police complaint against the CRPF Commandant for sexual harassment at the workplace under Sections 354A, 354D, and 509 IPC in October 2022 based on which he was arrested.  

Meanwhile, the Commandant’s wife came to know about her husband’s misdemeanour and tried to commit suicide and the case became a talk of the town.

This is when a level 1 enquiry headed by IG Sonal V Mishra, a 2000 batch, Tamil Nadu cadre IPS officer on deputation as ADG CRPF was ordered.

Though the enquiry report allegedly indited the Commandant and gave a clean chit to the lady officer, she too was abruptly transferred to 88 Mahila Battalion in Delhi – without giving her the stipulated time to pack her bags. When the officer tried to request ADG Sonal Mishra not to transfer her as this would be construed as disciplinary action against her and give people in the battalion a reason to gossip about. The officer reasoned that the transfer was arbitrary, unjustified, and procedurally improper but she was snubbed and told to immediately report on duty in Delhi.

Also Read: Women in Uniform, Law, and Policy: Reality, Rights, Risks, and Remedies

The lady officer did as she was ordered to, but this was the end of injustice and turmoil in her professional life as the higher ups in CRPF tried their best to brand her as a psychiatric case. As a part of this exercise, she was asked to report to the CPPF Composite hospital where every effort was made to label her as a mentally unstable person who tried to commit suicide. Luckily for her, this move didn’t work.

Curiously this was the time for her 2022-23 Annual Confidential Report (ACR). Under normal circumstances the Commandant 187 Battalion CRPF should have initiated her ACR but since his own conduct was under scrutiny, Rajesh Dhakarwal the DIG Jammu range was asked to write the ACR. The DIG while acknowleding the fact that she had never worked directly under his command, downgraded her ACR from outstanding to very good.  

Meanwhile, the officer reported for duty at the 88 Mahila Battalion, commanded by Mamta Singh who is wife of an ADG level IPS officer in the Intelligence Bureau (IB). However, this was not the end of the miseries in her life as during her tenure itself at least three inquiries were ordered against Mamta Singh who was a high-profile officer.

Curiously the CRPF Headquarters transferred the victim along and some other women personnel under the vague rubric of “administrative reasons” but Mamta Singh, the Commandant of 88 (M) Battalion was given a ‘clean chit’.

As things stand, though she was no way responsible for Mamta Singh’s deeds, the lady officer was allegedly made a scapegoat and summarily transferred to 124 Battalion in Tripura without notice or hearing. Allegedly the DG CRPF who was previously DGP Assam and was responsible for the security of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh, himself sanctioned the transfer despite the absolute statutory bar under Section 12 of the POSH Act, which expressly prohibits the transfer of an aggrieved woman during the pendency of a sexual harassment inquiry unless she herself makes a written request.  

Furthermore, the transfer has reportedly been justified on the basis of an alleged vigilance complaint addressed to DIG (CR & Vigilance)—a document that has not been disclosed to her  despite repeated representations. She has allegedly not been supplied with the contents of the complaint or given an opportunity to refute the contents of the complaint. This goes against the principles of natural justice and amounts to abuse of vigilance mechanisms to legitimise retaliatory action.

Finally, after exhausting all internal and administrative remedies, the officer has approached the National Commission for Women (NCW) and filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court to quash the illegal, punitive, arbitrary, and unconstitutional transfer order.

Some of the reliefs sought by her include:

• Declare Rule 6(a) of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 27.11.2014 and Standing Order No. 02/2017, insofar as they enable transfer of an aggrieved woman without her written request, as ultra vires Section 12 of the POSH Act
• Direct disclosure of the alleged vigilance complaint and restrain the CRPF from relying on undisclosed material
• Order time-bound consideration of her complaint against Padmakar S. Ranpise, IPS, then IG, Jammu Sector, CRPF (now ADG, CISF)
• Grant protection against further victimisation, particularly from retaliatory actions sanctioned by senior leadership.

Making a mockery of the whole thing Surinder Singh Rana – the then Commandant of the 187 Battalion against whom the victim had lodged a complaint of sexual harassment has reportedly been given a posting of his choice by the DG CRPF while the transfer requests of officers currently posted in hard areas are being rejected.

Evidently the department is supporting a culprit of sexual harassment while the woman officer who approached DG and other senior CRPF officers to seek justice is being penalised.

Finally, then officer approached the Delhi High Court Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla to challenge the transfer and seek justice.

The Delhi High Court bench stayed the transfer of the woman officer till 3 February 2026 department and directed the CRPF HQs to file its reply within three weeks.  

The case raises disturbing questions about the way senior CRPF leadership including the office of the Director General has allegedly weaponised transfers, breached confidentiality obligations, and failed to extend statutory workplace protections to women officers in uniformed services under the POSH Act.

This episode is being widely viewed as a disturbing example of failed leadership and institutional insensitivity, particularly reflecting the prevailing attitude of IPS leadership towards women CRPF cadre officers.

Instead of ensuring a safe, dignified, and fair work environment for a woman officer who raised serious grievances, the administrative response appears to have aggravated her vulnerability.

The matter highlights an urgent need for accountability, gender-sensitive leadership, and meaningful institutional safeguards to ensure that women officers are not penalized for speaking out against harassment.

The outcome off this case is expected to test whether statutory protections for women officers can withstand institutional resistance within central armed police forces.