The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated 1.10.2007 as contained in memo no. 2568 issued under the signature of Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police Force, Bokaro.

2. The brief facts of the case as per argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel of the petitioner is that the petitioner all of a sudden on 9.11.2005, fell mentally ill and due to that reason, he lost his consciousness and absented from the duty from the Governor’s residence, admitted to Kanke Mental Hospital for treatment of mental illness on 12.11.2005.

3. In course of mental illness while he was under treatment, the respondent no. 6 has issued a memo of charge alleging therein that the petitioner has absconded without permission of the Guard-in-Charge, from the residence of the Governor, in course of deputation as security guard vide memo no. 2098 dated 12.8.2006, the petitioner was treated in the Kanke Mental Hospital from 12.11.2005 to 9.9.2006 under the advise of Doctor U.N. Choudhary, Medical Officer, R.M.A. Kanke, Ranchi and was declared fit to discharge his duties on 9.9.2006 and thereafter, he had given his joining on 14.9.2006 along with medical prescription and medical certificate of fitness issued by the said Medical Officer, but a memo of the charge has been issued on 12.8.2006 alleging therein that the petitioner has absconded from the office, as such he has committed irregularity against which he has given due reply stating therein that since he was suffering from mental illness, he was not be able to discharge his duty but without considering his reply the charges have been found to be proved, thereafter, the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment of dismissal upon petitioner vide order dated 1.10.2007.

4. The petitioner has taken twofold plea challenging the order of dismissal dated 1.10.2007.

(i) He is entitled to be protected under sections 47 and 72 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1995), since the petitioner was mentally ill and as such his services cannot be dispensed with in view of the protection having granted under Section 47 of the Act, 1995.

(ii) The defence of the petitioner has not at all been considered by the Inquiry Officer, hence the inquiry report is perverse and since the order of removal is based upon the perverse inquiry report, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.

5. So far as the first point is concerned i.e. to give benefit of Section 47 of the Act, 1995, it is necessary to quote Section 47 of the Act, 1995, which reads as follows:-

“Section 47. Non-discrimination in Government employments. - (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service:

Provided that, if any employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits:

Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.

(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability:

Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.”

6. Before reaching to the conclusion as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of section 47 of the Act, 1995, it is necessary to see the definition of person with disability, as per the definition given under section 2(t) of the disability Act, 1995 speaks as follows:-

“Person with disability” means a person suffering from not less than forty percent of any disability as certified by a medical