New Delhi: An assistant commandant-rank woman officer with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) has moved the Delhi High Court, alleging that two transfer orders issued to her were retaliatory in nature. Her petition alleges that her “out of turn” transfers were the result of her complaints against an inspector general-rank officer for improper behaviour and the Commandant of her battalion for sexual harassment, years back in 2022.
Her petition mentions two transfers after August 2022. The first was in February 2023, months after her complaint against the I-G. The second—a “punitive, stigmatic and retaliatory” move, as she alleges—was in October 2025.
The officer has highlighted that she submitted a complaint to the then Additional Director General general in the CRPF (Jammu zone) against IPS Padmakar S. Ranpise—flagging attempts to publicly “discredit” her with claims that her senior, the Commandant, was favouring her.
Her current petition to the court accuses Ranpise of creating “a hostile working environment which is not conducive to the work culture”.
To substantiate her claims, she cited his written communication, dated 31 July 2022. In it, he observed: “…it is perceived that CO (Commandant) 187 battalion is showing her undue favour”. She then reported Ranpise to the ADGP of Jammu-CRPF.
Saying that the woman officer joined the CRPF’s 187th Battalion in May 2022, the ADGP’s communication further stated that then battalion’s Commandant Surinder Singh Rana’s wife attempted suicide over a misunderstanding arising from her presence.
Two months later, based on her police complaint against him, the Jammu and Kashmir Police booked Rana on charges of sexual harassment. He was then arrested and charged. His trial is ongoing in a court in Udhampur, ThePrint has learnt.
Following up on her complaint to the force, the CRPF also found her charges to be true, after inquiries under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act, 2013, her plea says.
ThePrint reached both Rana and Ranpise via WhatsApp messages and calls for comments, but had not received any response by the time of publication.
On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court issued a show-cause notice to CRPF, seeking its response and directing it to submit a counter-affidavit, if any, within three weeks. The matter has now been listed for February next year.
Also Read: How HC order granting ‘limited’ relief to PMLA accused also outlined scope of ED’s powers & ECI
The two complaints
The woman officer lodged two complaints against Rana—one with the CRPF administration under the PoSH Act, and the other with the Udhampur district police on 18 October 2022.
When ThePrint contacted CRPF spokespersons on the status of the PoSH complaint, they refused to comment on the matter.
The police complaint accused Rana of sending “lewd messages, making statements, and showing gestures”, going “against her dignity as a woman”. The woman officer said that she raised her disapproval with those gestures, even in writing, to stop him.
But Rana, she alleged, deliberately passed such comments in front of officers to show “he was very pleased with her and was favouring her, out of the way”.
“All this led people to believe that she was being favoured, and subsequently someone made an anonymous call to his wife,” the Udhampur court that heard the case later observed, based on the probe conducted by the Uttarakhand Police and her petition seeking action against Ranpise, a 1995-batch IPS officer of the Odisha cadre.
After the police chargesheet, the court charged Rana under IPC sections 354-A (sexual harassment), 354-D (stalking), 354-E (sextortion), and 509 (insulting modesty).
Under Section 354-E, “sextortion” is defined as an act of abuse of authority or relationship or official position to “employ physical or non-physical forms of coercion to extort or demand sexual favours from any woman in exchange for some benefits or other favours that such person is empowered to grant or withhold”.
In its order on framing of charges, the Udhampur court said that there were “specific allegations” against Rana, the Commanding Officer (CO), by the complainant, who suggested that “anything could happen between them, if she wanted,” and that he was in charge of writing her annual confidential reports (ACRs).
“The accused, being a superior officer, made a request implicitly to the complainant for sexual favour from the complainant in exchange for a benefit in the ACR which he had to write. There is an element of quid pro quo on the part of the accused, for giving a better ACR, and ACR was something which he was empowered to write, being her superior officer,” the court observed. “Hence, prima facie there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 354-E IPC.”
The petition
In the petition before the Delhi HC, the woman officer has alleged that her transfers—first in February 2023 and again in October this year—constituted a violation of Section 12 of India’s PoSH Act.
The Act provides for action by the Internal Committee (IC) or Local Committee (LC). The IC/LC could recommend interim relief to the aggrieved, including transfer to another workplace, leave of up to three months, or any other relief, but only upon her written request.
The woman officer had made no such request, she said, adding that the second transfer in October this year instead came on a purported complaint against her before the CRPF vigilance department. However, she was never provided a copy of this purported complaint so she could address the allegations raised, she asserted.
On the other hand, the woman officer requested the court to issue directions to CRPF to dispose of her 2022 complaint against Ranpise in a “fair, impartial and time-bound manner”.
Awarded the President’s Police Medal for Distinguished Service on Independence Day in 2022, Padmakar S. Ranpise has since been promoted to additional director general’s rank in the Central Industrial Security Force. Rana is now posted in the CRPF North West sector.
“Because the cumulative effect of the derogatory signal dated 31.07.2022, baseless allegations by superior officers, delayed and ineffective redressal of complaints, unlawful transfer dated 03.02.2023, and the impugned transfer dated 29.10.2025, establishes a continuing course of victimisation, warranting judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” the woman officer has now submitted before the Delhi High Court, citing it as a ground for her writ petition.
“Because repeated and frequent transfers during the pendency of the inquiry inevitably result in disclosure of the factum of the sexual harassment proceedings to multiple officers and staff at successive places of posting, thereby violating the statutory obligation of confidentiality and need-based communication enshrined under the PoSH Act.”
Through counsel Manish Sangwan and counsel Anshul Kumar, she further submitted that she was abruptly excluded from the usual transfer cycle of the CRPF and subjected to an “out-of-turn and ad hoc” transfer policy, causing “irreparable” harm to her dignity, reputation, and service profile.
“Such disclosure causes serious and irreparable harm to the Petitioner’s dignity, reputation, and service profile, and defeats the express legislative intent to protect the identity and privacy of the aggrieved woman,” the petition adds.
She further stated that the CRPF administration “completely” failed to acknowledge that her allegations of sexual harassment against the commandant led to an FIR, followed by a chargesheet and framing of charges by a court. The development, she said, should have served as a “clear indicator” of a serious offence against her dignity and safety at the workplace.
“Instead of extending statutory and constitutional protection to the petitioner as an aggrieved woman officer, the respondents have subjected her to adverse administrative consequences, including punitive transfers and reliance on stigmatic material, thereby penalising the victim rather than addressing the misconduct of the accused officer,” she submitted.
“Such an approach is manifestly arbitrary, gender-biased and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and runs contrary to the object and spirit of the PoSH Act, 2013, which mandates a safe, non-hostile and non-retaliatory work environment for women.”
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: SC stays Delhi HC order suspending Unnao rape convict Sengar’s life term—‘judges too prone to error’