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

2025 Supreme(Gau) 538

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Soumitra Saikia, J.
Santosh Kumar - Appellant 
Vs. 
The Union of India - Respondent 
W.P(C) NO. 350/2023
Decided On : 06-03-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R. Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. K. Gogoi, CGC

Disciplinary proceedings against individuals with mental illness must consider their condition and provide reasonable accommodations as mandated by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Disciplinary proceedings - The petitioner challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him while he was undergoing treatment for mental illness. The court emphasized the need for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, particularly in disciplinary contexts. (Paras 10, 14, 16)

(B) Ex parte proceedings - The court found that proceeding ex parte against the petitioner, who was suffering from mental illness, violated his rights under the RPwD Act. The disciplinary authority must consider the medical condition of the petitioner before proceeding with any disciplinary action. (Paras 10, 14, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Commandant in the CRPF, faced disciplinary action while undergoing treatment for mental illness. He was unable to participate in the enquiry proceedings due to his health condition. (Paras 2, 10)

Findings of Court:
The court held that the disciplinary proceedings were discriminatory and violated the provisions of the RPwD Act, emphasizing the need for the disciplinary authority to consider the petitioner’s mental health. (Paras 14, 16)

Issues: The main issues included whether the disciplinary proceedings were valid given the petitioner’s mental health condition and the adequacy of accommodations provided. (Paras 10, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mental health disorders are recognized as disabilities and that disciplinary proceedings must not proceed ex parte if the individual is unable to participate due to their condition. (Paras 14, 16)

Result: The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were set aside, and the disciplinary authority was directed to reassess the case considering the petitioner’s mental health. (Paras 14, 16)

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

These three writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner putting to challenge the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

2. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are narrated as under:

The petitioner was posted in the Office of the Inspector General, Jharkhand Sector of the Central Reserve Police Force at Ranchi from 2017 to June, 2019. On July, 2019 he reported back to the Office of the IG (Ops), CRPF, Jorhat, Assam in the same capacity as Assistant Commandant (PS), CRPF. Again in the month of September, 2019, the petitioner was asked to report before the Office of the Inspector General, Jharkhand Sector of CRPF in connection to verification of certain documents relating to SSF Accounts of the Office. The petitioner reported to the Office of the IG, Jharkhand Sector, Ranchi after obtaining due permission from his superior Officer. On 19.09.2019, when he had reported to the Office, he was handed over to the Civil Police of Nagari Police Station in the district of Ranchi. He was taken into custody by the police authorities in connection to Nagari Police Station Case No.157/2019 under Sections 407/468/471/419/420/409 of the IPC.

It is contended that the FIR before the Nagari Police Station was lodged by one Ramesh Kumar Jena who introduced himself as the Personal Secretary of Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Sector where anomalies with regard to SSF Account No. 31303458311 was alleged and the FIR was lodged. He was put under suspension with effect from 27.09.2019 (wrongly quoted as 2018 in the order) in terms of Rule 10(2) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide order No. 1-45022/89/98-Pers-1 dated 30.04.2002. The petitioner was thereafter allowed to go on bail on 18.04.2020. After being released on bail, the petitioner sent an E- mail to the IG(Operations), Jharkhand and Group Centre, Jamshedpur by an E-mail dated 20.04.2020. By the said E-mail, he had intimated the authorities that he had been released on bail and has reached his home in Ranchi and requesting to arrange for Train Ticket or road transport from Ranchi to Group Centre, Jamshedpur for his journey. This E-mail was replied on 21.04.2020 whereby he was informed his declared headquarter is Group Centre, Jamshedpur and he is to take necessary directions in this regard for his controlling authority. On the same day, the petitioner sent an E- mail to DIG, Group Centre, CRPF, Jamshedpur. With reference to the earlier E-mail received seeking direction as to how the petitioner should reach Group Centre, Jamshedpur from Ranchi during the lockdown period.

On 23.04.2020, the Group Centre, Jamshedpur replied to the E-mail instructing the petitioner to remain in home till the lockdown period is over. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed by the Deputy Inspector General regarding the availability of unit vehicle which is likely to return back to Jharkhand Sector and accordingly he was asked to liaison with the control room and accompany the said vehicle for his journey for Ranchi to Group Centre, Jamshedpur. In terms of the said instructions, the petitioner travelled back to Jamshedpur and reported before the Group Centre on 22.04.2020. He filed a representation on 30.05.2020 for release of subsistence allowance for the period of February, 2020 to April, 2020. Further representations were made requesting for release of subsistence allowance. He thereafter submitted a representation on 20.06.2020 requesting for a change of the declared headquarter during his suspension period as he is required to attend Court cases in Ranchi. However, the representations preferred by the petitioner were taken into account but he was kept under the Commandant Control of the Office of the Inspector General (Operation), Jorhat/Group Centre, Khatkati. Thereafter by order dated 23.06.2020, the petitioner’s headquarter was changed to the Inspector Genera

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top