Employers must adhere to the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and protect employees acquiring disabilities during service.

1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.2953 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, seeking to challenge an order dated 05.02.2001 passed by the second respondent Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime and Traffic, Madurai City.

2. Notice of motion was ordered in the Original Application on 30.04.2001. Though the petitioner had sought for an interim order, the same was not granted by the Tribunal.

3. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit dated 10.09.2001. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.150 of 2007.

4. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was recruited as Police Constable on 21.07.1975. Subsequently, he was promoted as Grade I Police Constable and Head Constable and at the end of his service, he was serving in Crime Record Bureau, Madurai City. The petitioner met with a lorry accident on 21.09.1994 while he was driving a two wheeler. Due to the accident, his left forefeet was amputated and after treatment, he joined duty. But however due to the amputation undergone by him, his case was sent for Medical Board for examining as to whether he was fit for continuing in the Police Department. On direction from the Secretary, Regional Medical Board, Government Rajaji Hospital, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board on 30.01.2001. The Medical Board after examining issued a certificate dated 30.01.2001 holding that he was unfit for further continuance in the Department. It was on such direction, the petitioner was invalidated from service on 05.02.2001. Thereafter, his name was struck off from the Department on 08.02.2001.

5. Upon his invalidation, the petitioner sent a representation dated 05.03.2001 stating that after the completion of the treatment, along with the fitness certificate, he was posted under the District Crime Record Bureau and continued for six years and all of a sudden to disengage or invalidate him was unwarranted. He has also got nine years of service and the pre-mature invalidation will put him in economic penury. He also stated that he was being sent out for extraneous reasons.

6. In reply to the petitioner's allegation, it was stated by the respondents in Paragraph 5 of the reply affidavit, which is as follows:-

5.1 It is true that the applicant was appointed as Police Constable on 26.07.1975. Later he was promoted as Grade I Police Constable and Head Constable on seniority. He was lastly serving in Crime Record Bureau, Madurai City. It is not true that the applicant has been sincere and hardworking discharging his duties to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. In this regard, it is pertinent to note here that there are seven punishments to the discredit of the petitioner.

2.It is submitted that the averments contained in the para are true.

3.It is submitted that the applicant after undergoing medical treatment he was given desk work considering his physical inability to do routine work.

4.It is submitted that the averments contained in para 4 are not true. It is stated that the applicant was writing monthly review report and other such reports while he was on duty in the Crime Record Bureau, Madurai City. It is not an unusual work which was specifically discharged by the applicant as such there is nothing special in it.

5. The averments contained in para 5 are not true. It is stated that the applicant is co-brother of one Tr.Chandran of Madurai who is a close friend of Thiru Misa.Pandian, the then Dy.Mayor of Madurai Corporation who is allegedly involved in a murder case and cases has also been registered against Thiru Chandran u/s 212 IPC. This fact of the relationship of the applicant with one Chandran of the above said case came to be known only through the averments contained herein. The respondents do not know the applicant's relationship with Chandran prior to the averments in the petition. So in such circumstances the action taken against Thiru Cha