Termination on the ground of mental disorder without valid and sound proof cannot be held justified.

This writ petition came up for final disposal today and co-incidentally today (10th October) is observed as the World Mental Health Day all over the World. The issues raised herein will have some impact on the administration and atleast in future they should be sensitive to the problems afflicting the persons who are mentally ill.

2. The petitioner was an Anganwadi Worker. The petitioner is a post graduate and joined the Service on 1.7.1982. Initially, she was paid on consolidated basis. Subsequently, her salary was increased and she was posted at Sankaraperi as an Anganwadi Worker. She had put in 25 years‘ of service and she also won an award from the District Collector for her outstanding service in child care and related activities. She is also doing some social service, like teaching spoken English to the Village children. She was solely helping her aged parents and remains unmarried. Unfortunately her father died on 16.11.2002 and her brothers having left house after marriage, she is staying with her mother and supporting her.

3. By the impugned order dated 24.2.2006, her services were terminated by the order of the second respondent (District Project Officer, Tuticorin). The order, which is in Tamil, if translated reads as follows:

“Selvi. Tamilarasi, Anganwadi Worker of Sankaraperi Centre, Tuticorin (Village) was kept under suspension with effect from 30.12.2005 by the order.” (reference 1 Project Officers Proceeding dated 30.12.2005). “In view of the reference No. 2, advise given and by the post factor/ratification of the District Collectors proceedings, she has been permanently removed from service.” (reference No. 2 District Collectors ratification dated 11.1.2006).

4. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. At the time of admission of the writ petition, in W.P.M.P. No. 3175 of 2006, an interim stay was granted initially for a period of 2 weeks. Subsequently, it was extended upto 29.6.2006. Thereafter, it was not listed and the interim order was not extended. However, the respondent filed a vacate stay petition in W.V.M.P. No. 391 of 2006 with a supporting affidavit dated 29.1.2006 filed by the third respondent along with a petition. A typed-set of document is also filed by the third respondent.

5. It contains some complaints received against the petitioner given by the villagers as well as some helpers in the Centre. On the basis of the report, the third respondent sent a letter dated 12.12.2005 to the second respondent stating that the Project Officer must take appropriate steps. A certificate was also obtained against the petitioner from a Psychiatrist that the petitioner was suffering from a Paranoid condition. It is stated in the said certificate that the said doctor examined the petitioner on 23.12.2005 and made the observation on the same day.

6. Armedwith all these reports, the second respondent who made a spot inspection and who also got the medical certificate during her visit, suspended the petitioner by an order dated 30.12.2005. It was stated in the order that since the petitioners mental health was not alright and as she was exhibiting indifference to work, she was placed under suspension.

7. On the strength of this report, a charge memo dated 6.1.2006 was given to the petitioner asking her explanation for the same. The petitioner applied for leave from 25.11.2005 to 30.11.2005 and 1.12.2005 to 5.12.2005 and from 2.1.2006 to 31.1.2006 for leave on personal work and medical leave respectively.

8. In themeanwhile, the petitioner obtained a medical certificate from the Selection Grade Assistant Surgeon, Tuticorin that her absence of duty from 1.2.2006 to 28.2.2006 was absolutely necessary for the restoration of health and she also on the strength of the said certificate applied for medical leave. It is seen that the leave was neither sanctioned nor rejected by the respondent. Pursuant to the charge memo, since the petitioner had not given her reply, it was presumed t