The Exemption Notification under Section 20 of the Disabilities Act applies to the respondent, terminating protections based on unestablished mental disabilities during misconduct; Inquiry Proceedings are valid and should proceed without delay.

ORDER :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, i.e., Union of India and Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner).

2. The impugned common judgment and order dated 06.03.2025 passed in WP(C) Nos. 350/2023, 360/2023 is under challenge by way of this appeal.

3. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 06.03.2025, has directed the appellants not to conclude the three inquiry proceedings initiated against the respondent, until and unless the alleged mental illness of the respondent is examined by the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Guwahati, comprising of a qualified psychiatrist and such other qualified medical professionals as deemed necessary. The learned Single Judge held that after the Medical Board of the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Guwahati, undertakes a proper medical examination of the respondent and makes its decision, in terms of Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner should be allowed to file his reply/representation to the 3 Inquiry Reports in relation to the three Inquiry Proceedings, before the Disciplinary Authority.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the three Inquiry proceedings had been initiated against the respondent, who is an Assistant Commandant in the CRPF, due to various charges of misconduct, which the respondent wilfully did not participate in. The respondent was also given the opportunity to engage a defence assistant. However, as the respondent did not participate, ex-parte Inquiry Proceedings were held against him. The three Inquiry Reports were also furnished to the respondent, to enable him to file representations against the same. Instead of filing representation/s against the Inquiry Reports, the respondent instead made a challenge to the three Inquiry Proceedings and Inquiry Reports, vide WP(C) Nos. 350/2023, 360/2023 and 456/2023, on the ground that as he was having some physical and mental impairment, i.e., he was a “person with disability” in terms of Section 2 (s) of the Act, the Inquiry Proceedings should not be concluded till he was fully cured. Due to the learned Single Judge passing an interim order directing that no penalty should be imposed on the respondent, unless and until a Medical Examination of the respondent was conducted, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 06.03.2025, the respondent is still working in the CRPF as on date.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of an Exemption Notification dated 18.08.2021 having been issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Section 20 of the Act for combatant personnel of CAPFs, the respondent is not entitled to get any relief under of the Act. He also submits that the principles laid down in the case of Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal and Another vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2023) 2 SCC 209 cannot be applied to the present case, as the writ petition had been filed in the year 2023, i.e. after issuance of the Exemption Notification dated 18.08.2021. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra), the preliminary question to be decided was as to whether disciplinary proceedings could be instituted against the conduct of an employee, who allegedly had a mental disability and whether the alleged misconduct was found to be connected to the mental disability of the employee.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the present case, t