On 31.07.2025, in V.K. Pandey v. Shashi Aggarwal, the Saket Court decreed a defamation suit in favour of the plaintiff, awarding him damages of ₹10,00,000. The plaintiff, having an unblemished service record of 35 years in the BSF, alleged that the defendant, a UDC in the same organisation, made false complaints of sexual harassment against him out of personal grudge, thereby damaging his reputation and causing mental agony.

The plaintiff contended that due to the defendant’s inefficiency and careless work habits, he had reported her to higher authorities, which led to her transfer. Aggrieved, she filed three complaints dated 19.01.2016, 03.02.2016, and 04.02.2016 accusing him of sexual harassment. Each complaint improvised the story and was contradictory in nature.

The plaintiff argued that these complaints were “baseless, false, mala fide, unsubstantiated, motivated, libelous and solely made with the intention to damage the reputation of the plaintiff.”

He further stated that an inquiry conducted by the Commandant and reported to the IG concluded that the allegations were false, frivolous, and motivated by mala fide intentions. The inquiry report specifically held that the plaintiff “was not present in his office at the time of the alleged incident” and highlighted contradictions in the defendant’s complaints.

Court noted that defendant did not file her written statement despite repeated opportunities, and her right was closed on 03.01.2018. The plaintiff examined himself (PW-1) and a BSF constable (PW-2), who produced the internal inquiry records. The documents and testimony remained unchallenged.

Court observed that the allegations were “definitely defamatory and had tarnished the image and reputation of the plaintiff amongst his colleagues, family and society.”

It further stated that false complaints “spread like wildfire” and disrupt both professional and family life, warranting strict deterrence.

Court also reproduced portions of the defendant’s complaints to highlight their defamatory nature. For instance, in the first complaint she wrote,“When I came in the office of VK Pandey for discussion/clarification on a file, he caught hold of me. I protested strongly and ran from his room.” These were found to be fabricated and inconsistent with the inquiry findings.

The plaintiff had sought ₹30 lakhs, citing damage to reputation and potential loss of service benefits. However, Court held, “In the considered opinion of this court, an apprehended loss which never actually happened cannot be the basis of assessing the compensation… however, considering the mental harassment… damages to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs are considered appropriate.”

Accordingly, Court decreed the suit and held,“The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.”