The Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) – one of the oldest, largest and the most reputed central paramilitary forces is these days making news for all the wrong reasons.
In what seems to be a clearcut case of administrative arrogance and miscarriage of justice the Commandant, 88 (M) Battalion CRPF and higher ups in the CRPF headquarters are allegedly not allowing a lady officer to join back on duty despite a stay order being granted by the Delhi High Court.
The officer concerned allegedly made repeated representations to the Commandant, 88 (M) Battalion CRPF, DIG (Personnel), Northern Sector, the Inspector General concerned, and even the Director General, CRPF but no corrective action has been taken.
The officer repeatedly approached the Commandant of 88 (M) Battalion through official messages, making several requests regarding her joining but the Commandant chose not to respond. Her calculated silence was allegedly neither accidental nor administrative oversight, but a conscious act of non-cooperation and misuse of authority.
Her fault:
The only fault of the highly decorated 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 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. Instead, she was abruptly transferred to 88 Mahila Battalion in Delhi – without giving her the stipulated time to pack her bags.
The officer appealed to her seniors 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.
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. 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.
Injustice continues:
Meanwhile, the officer reported for duty at the 88 Mahila Battalion, commanded by Mamta Singh. However, this was not the end of the miseries in her life.
It is also learnt that the Commandant 88(M) BN reportedly indulged in corrupt practices and allegedly asked the unit officer to do her personal work like renovating her home or getting her clothes dry cleaned without making any payment to them.
Meanwhile, it is reliably learnt that Mamta Singh publicly made a statement at a Sainik Sammelan that she does not want any males, including male officers, in the unit which is contrary to the ethos, discipline, and principles governing the Force.
Despite the completion of her prescribed three-year tenure, Mamta Singh continues to remain posted in Delhi while the lady officer was summarily transferred to 124 Battalion in Tripura without notice or hearing.
Allegedly the DG CRPF himself sanctioned the transfer despite the 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.
As a result, the victim continues to suffer further victimisation, uncertainty, and mental harassment, even after approaching the High court which stayed the transfer till 3 February 2026.
Legal observers view the matter as a critical test of whether women officers in uniformed services can meaningfully rely on the POSH Act without fear of reprisal, and whether accountability can be enforced at the highest levels of command.
The outcome of this case will have significant implications for gender justice, administrative fairness, and leadership accountability within the Central Armed Police Forces, particularly in ensuring that women officers are not further victimised for seeking lawful redress against sexual harassment.
