The State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities lacks the authority to impose punitive measures, as its powers are strictly recommendatory under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

JUDGMENT :

BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.

1. Rule.

2. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard finally with consent of the parties.

4. The petition is filed with the following prayers:-

(a) For a writ of certiorari, any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and proceedings of the Impugned Order dated 24/07/2024 passed in Case No.05/ComPwDs/2024-25/681 (Sagar Jawdekar Vs. The Manager Canara Bank and Ors.) on the file of the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities/Respondent No.2, and upon perusing the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned Order dated 24/07/2024, be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 24/07/2024.

(b) For an Order of this Hon’ble Court staying the operation/implementation /execution of the Impugned Order dated 24/07/2024 during the pendency, adjudication and subsequent disposal of the present petition.

(c) Ex-parte ad interim order in terms of prayer clause (B) herein above.

(d) Any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

5. The Petitioners are the officers of Canara Bank who are challenging the order passed by the Commissioner for Persons with disabilities dated 24/07/2024.

6. Mr. Lawande would submit that the complaint was lodged by Respondent No. 1, who is claiming to be the father of a disabled child, with Respondent No. 2/State Commissioner for persons with disabilities, making some allegations against the Manager of the branch at Panaji about inhuman treatment given to him, when he went to the branch on 04th of January 2024 for depositing a cheque in the joint account of himself and the disabled child, and also requested to operate the account which had become dormant.

7. Mr. Lawande would submit that on the receipt of the notice from the Commissioner, the Petitioner appeared and filed a reply disclosing the facts which happened on that day and claimed that the Petitioners only asked Respondent No.1 to comply with KYC formalities and produce relevant documents, so that account would be reactivated for the reason it became dormant, as it was not operated for a long time

8. Mr. Lawande would submit that the cheque which Respondent No. 1 wanted to deposit was accepted and credited into the joint account. However, in absence of KYC formalities, it was not possible for the Manager to allow one to operate the account.

9. Mr Lawande would submit that there are circulars from their own Bank as well as from Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in the form of guidelines where the Manager is duty-bound to obey such guidelines. He would submit that the Manager simply tried to implement the guidelines by informing Respondent No. 1 to complete KYC guidelines, however, he was not ready to do so.

10. Mr Lawande would submit that RBI guidelines show that the mandatory requirement has to be followed when an account becomes dormant. If the Manager allows operation of the account without KYC formalities, he would be facing Departmental proceedings.

11. Mr Lawande would submit that the document of disability which was shown by Respondent No. 1 was found valid only upto the year 2012 and accordingly, such document could not have been accepted. He submitted asking Respondent No. 1, who is the father of a disabled child to complete KYC formalities as per the guidelines of the Bank and RBI, by no stretch of imagination would be discrimination against the disabled child. He submits that the disabled child was not present along with Respondent No.