SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Gau) 147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Keshab Chetry - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Ors - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 7137 of 2016; I.A. (Civil) No. 1513 of 2020
Decided On : 18-03-2021

Advocates Appeared:
K.K. Upadhyay, Advocate, N.N. Upadhyaya, Advocate, A. Gayan, Advocate, R. Dhar, Advocate

The authority to discharge under the BSF Act, 1968 and the applicability of the PWD Act, 1995 were central legal points established in the judgment.

Headnote:

Colour Blindness - Discharge from Service - BSF Act, 1968, Rule 13 of the BSF Rules, 1969, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Section 11 of the BSF Act, 1968, Rule 13 of the BSF Rules, 1969, Section 47 of the PWD Act, 1995, CCS Pension Rules, 1972 - The court upheld the discharge of the petitioner from service under Section 11 of the BSF Act, 1968 and Rule 13 of the BSF Rules, 1969. It also ruled that Section 47 of the PWD Act, 1995 did not apply as colour blindness is a congenital disease. The petitioner's claim for pension was denied due to insufficient qualifying service.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a BSF constable, was discharged from service due to colour blindness. The petitioner challenged the discharge, claiming that only specific officers had the authority to discharge him and that he should have been adjusted to clerical work or granted pension.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Commandant had the authority to discharge the petitioner under Section 11 of the BSF Act, 1968. It ruled that the PWD Act, 1995 did not apply to the petitioner's case and denied the claim for pension due to insufficient qualifying service.

Issues: Authority to discharge under BSF Act, applicability of PWD Act, 1995, and claim for pension.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Commandant had the authority to discharge the petitioner under Section 11 of the BSF Act, 1968. It also ruled that the PWD Act, 1995 did not apply as colour blindness is a congenital disease. The claim for pension was denied due to insufficient qualifying service.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the discharge of the petitioner from service.

JUDGMENT

Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. A. Gayan, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order dated 02.08.2016 issued by the Commandant, 95th Batallion BSF, by which the petitioner has been discharged from service and struck off from the strength of RTC, BSF, Bhondsi under Section 11 of the BSF Act, 1968 read with Rule 13 of the BSF Rules, 1969, as amended in 2017.

3. The petitioner's case in brief is that after a selection test which involved medical examination, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable (GD) in the BSF. The petitioner was immediately sent for training and during routine medical examination of the petitioner held on 06.04.2015, the petitioner was found to be having defective colour vision and was referred to an Eye Specialist at FHQ Hospital-I. On examination by the Eye Specialist on 26.05.2015, the petitioner was found to be suffering from defective colour vision (colour blindness). Thereafter, the petitioner was discharged due to him suffering from colour blindness vide the impugned Order dated 02.08.2016.

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner could not have been discharged from service in terms of Section 11 of the BSF Act, 1968 read with Rule 13 of the BSF Rules, 1969 as only the Director General, Inspector General or Deputy Inspector General could have discharged the petitioner from service. He also submits that the petitioner had himself examined in Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 24.05.2016, wherein it was found that he was not suffering from colour blindness. He accordingly submits that a review Medical Board should be constituted to examine the petitioner.

5. The petitioner's counsel submits that even if the petitioner is found to be suffering from colour blindness, the petitioner should have been adjusted against some other clerical work in the BSF organization, keeping in view Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation), Act, 1995 hereinafter referred to as the "PWD Act, 1995". He further submits that the petitioner is entitled to grant of pension, as he was discharged from service on medical grounds.

6. Mrs. A. Gayan, learned CGC submits that the petitioner was appointed by the Commandant and in terms of Section 11 of the BSF Act, 1968, the petitioner can be terminated by the Commandant. She also submits that Section 47 of the PWD Act, 1995 is not applicable to the petitioner and that the petitioner does not have the minimum qualifying years of service to be granted pension. She also submits that the petitioner was examined by three review Medical Boards on 03.06.2015, 03.03.2016 and 31.08.2016, wherein the petitioner was found to be suffering from colour blindness.

7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

8. A perusal of Section 11 (2) of the BSF Act, 1968 shows that an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector-General or any prescribed officer may dismiss or remove from service, any person under his command other than an officer or a subordinate officer of such rank or ranks as may be prescribed. The petitioner having been appointed by the Commandant who comes within the meaning of "or any prescribed officers" in terms of Rule 177 of the BSF Rules, 1969, shows that the Commandant has the authority to discharge the petitioner from service.

9. The next ground of challenge made by the petitioner is with regard to Section 47 of the PWD Act, 1995, wherein the petitioner's counsel has stated that even if the petitioner was found to be suffering from colour blindness, he should have been adjusted against some other work, like clerical work in the BSF organization, instead of discharging him from service. Section 47 of the PWD Act states that no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during service. As colour blindness is a congenital dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top