IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
P. NAVEEN RAO, J.
R. Sampath S/o Rajaiah – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 43093 of 2016
Decided On : 29-06-2020
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Section 47 and 2 - Mental Health Act, 1987 - Sections 24 and 25 - Central Security Force Rules, 2001 - Rule 91 - Central Civil Services (Medical Examination) Rules, 1957 - Disciplinary Authority - Counter Affidavit - Specific Allegations - Compulsory Retirement - Petitioner was working as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force order he was placed under suspension on allegation of assaulting Inspector charge memo was drawn and communicated to petitioner - Charge memo contained four charges disciplinary proceedings initiated in said manner culminated by order where under punishment of compulsory retirement from service with full pensionary benefits was imposed on petitioner and same was confirmed by Appellate Authority vide his order writ petition petitioner challenges order of compulsory retirement, as affirmed by appellate authority -
Finding of the Court:
Medical Board declares member of force as unfit for further service Inspector General Deputy Inspector General Commandant case may be, may retire enrolled member from service - Rule requires communication of findings of Medical board and decision to member of force before resorting to retire him from service and that member is entitled to file objections against findings of Medical board and decision of competent authority to next higher authority and in such a case - Elaborate procedure is envisaged whenever competent authority finds that member of Force is unable to discharge his duties because of his unfitness - Disciplinary Authority mixed up both aspects - While continuing the disciplinary proceedings culminating in imposing punishment of compulsory retirement, he takes notice on the health status claim of the petitioner to retire him compulsorily by way of punishment order of compulsory retirement is in violation of statutory mandate reasons best known, at all levels, this aspect was ignored -
Result:Writ Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
1. Petitioner was working as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). By order dated 06.05.2015, he was placed under suspension on the allegation of assaulting Inspector/Exe. Brijender Singh, Coy. Commander. On 08.05.2015, charge memo was drawn and communicated to the petitioner. Charge memo contained four charges. The disciplinary proceedings initiated in the said manner culminated by order dated 07.11.2015, where under punishment of compulsory retirement from service with full pensionary benefits was imposed on the petitioner, and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide his order dated 02.11.2016. In this writ petition, petitioner challenges the order of compulsory retirement, as affirmed by the appellate authority.
2. Heard Mr. Sampath, party-in-person and the learned Assistant Solicitor General for Central Government.
3. Extensive submissions are made by the petitioner and learned standing counsel. However, having regard to the order, the Court proposes to pass in this writ petition, the Court only records the submissions on the aspect of health condition of the petitioner, particularly on ‘Bipolar Mood Disorder’ and whether the same has any impact on the disciplinary action initiated and concluded against the petitioner.
4.1. According to the petitioner, during the relevant period, he was suffering from mental illness and was undergoing treatment in the Government Hospital in Karimnagar and in the Government Mental Hospital at Eerragadda at Hyderabad. During the course of enquiry, petitioner also informed the Enquiry Officer about his health condition and placed before him the relevant medical record in support of his contention. This specific assertion of the petitioner was not considered by the Enquiry Officer and illegally holds the charges as proved without subjecting the petitioner to medical examination and without providing proper opportunity to defend the charges leveled against him.
4.2. Petitioner further submitted that in response to the show-cause notice against findings of the Enquiry Officer, he has specifically pointed out to the Disciplinary authority about his mental condition, but disciplinary authority also failed to appreciate his contention and erroneously passed the orders of compulsory retirement.
4.3. Petitioner further submitted that in the appeal preferred against the order of compulsory retirement, he has raised specific contention about his health condition and denial of reasonable opportunity, but the same was also not appreciated by the appellate authority and mechanically rejected his appeal. Petitioner therefore submitted that as his health was not good and he was suffering with some mental illness, the respondents erred in conducting disciplinary proceedings, holding the charges as proved and imposing punishment of compulsory retirement and, therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated.
4.4. In support of his contention that his health condition was within the knowledge of the respondent authorities, petitioner placed reliance on his representation submitted to the Director General requesting to transfer him to Hyderabad on the ground that he is suffering with some mental disorder and he requires treatment. Accepting his request, the Director General transferred the petitioner to Hyderabad vide his proceedings dated 03.07.2015. He would submit that this order of transfer recognizes the claim of petitioner that he was suffering from some mental disorder and he requires treatment. He therefore submitted that the respondent authorities, particularly Disciplinary Authority, the Enquiry Officer and the Appellate Authority are all aware of his mental condition, and the same was not taken note of while considering his defense and while passing orders imposing punishment by the appellate authority.
4.5. According to the petitioner, as per the Central Civil Services (Medical Examination) Rules, 1957, which are applicable to the Constables in Central Industrial Securit
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.