Santosh Kumar Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

¶1

GAHC010013152024

¶2

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT

¶3

W.P(C) NO. 350/2023

¶4

Santosh Kumar,

¶5

Aged about 45 years, Assistant Commandant, (PS) (IRLA No. 11192) (Under Suspension), presently posted at Office of the Inspector General, (Operation), Jorhat, Assam, Headquarters during suspension at Group Centre Khatkhati, Central Reserve Police Force, Khatkhati, Karbi Anglong, Assam, PIN: 782480

¶6

……..Petitioner

¶7

- Versus -

¶8

1. The Union of India

¶9

Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, PIN: 110001

¶10

2. The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, PIN: 110003

¶11

3. The Dy. Inspector General (CR & VIG), Office of the Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, PIN: 110003

¶12

4. The Inspector General of Police, North Eastern Sector Central Reserve Police Force, Shillong, Meghalaya, PIN: 793 001

¶13

5. The Inspector General, Operation Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Police Complex, Rowriah, Jorhat, Assam, PIN: 785004

¶14

Page 1 of 20

¶15

6. Bharat Kumar Vaishnav (IRLA 4858), Commandant 142, Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, C/o Office of the Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi PIN 110 003

¶16

7. L. Kipgen, (IRLA 70450) Deputy Commandant Group Centre Khatkhati, Central Reserve Police Force, C/O Office of the Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003

¶17

…….. Respondents

¶18

W.P(C) NO. 360/2023

¶19

Santosh Kumar,

¶20

Aged about 45 years, Assistant Commandant, (PS) (IRLA No. 11192) (Under Suspension), presently posted at Office of the Inspector General, (Operation), Jorhat, Assam, Headquarters during suspension at Group Centre Khatkhati, Central Reserve Police Force, Khatkhati, Karbi Anglong, Assam, PIN: 782480

¶21

……..Petitioner

¶22

Versus -

¶23

1 The Union of India

¶24

Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, PIN: 110001

¶25

2. The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, PIN: 110003

¶26

The Dy. Inspector General (CR & VIG), Office of the Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, PIN: 110003

¶27

The Inspector General of Police, North Eastern Sector Central Reserve Police Force, Shillong, Meghalaya, PIN: 793 001

¶28

The Inspector General, Operation Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Police Complex, Rowriah, Jorhat, Assam, PIN: 785004

¶29

Bharat Kumar Vaishnav (IRLA 4858), Commandant 142, Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, C/o Office of the Directorate General, Central

¶30

Page 2 of 20

¶31

Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi PIN 110 003

¶32

7. Sunil Kr. Shahi, Second in Command (IRLA 5884), 26 Battalion,Central Reserve Police Force, C/O Office of the Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003

¶33

…….. Respondents

¶34

W.P(C) NO. 456/2023

¶35

Santosh Kumar,

¶36

Aged about 45 years, Assistant Commandant, (PS) (IRLA No. 11192) (Under Suspension), presently posted at Office of the Inspector General, (Operation), Jorhat, Assam, Headquarters during suspension at Group Centre Khatkhati, Central Reserve Police Force, Khatkhati, Karbi Anglong, Assam, PIN: 782480

¶37

……..Petitioner

¶38

- Versus -

¶39

1. The Union of India

¶40

Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, PIN: 110001

¶41

2. The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, PIN: 110003

¶42

The Dy. Inspector General (CR & VIG), Office of the Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, PIN: 110003

¶43

The Inspector General of Police, North Eastern Sector Central Reserve Police Force, Shillong, Meghalaya, PIN: 793 001

¶44

The Inspector General, Operation Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Police Complex, Rowriah, Jorhat, Assam, PIN: 785004

¶45

Radhe Shyam Singh, Commandant (IRL 4692) Commandant 94, Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, C/o Office of the Directorate General, Central

¶46

Page 3 of 20

¶47

Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi PIN 110 003

¶48

7. Mahesh Vishwakarma, Second in Command (IRLA 6538), 112 Battalion,Central Reserve Police Force, C/O Office of the Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003

¶49

…….. Respondents

¶50

– B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶51

Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. R. Mazumdar, Advocate Advocate for the respondents : Mr. K. Gogoi, CGC Date of Judgment & Order: : 06.03.2025

¶52

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶53

These three writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner putting to challenge the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

¶54

The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are narrated as under:

¶55

The petitioner was posted in the Office of the Inspector General, Jharkhand Sector of the Central Reserve Police Force at Ranchi from 2017 to June, 2019. On July, 2019 he reported back to the Office of the IG (Ops), CRPF, Jorhat, Assam in the same capacity as Assistant Commandant (PS), CRPF. Again in the month of September, 2019, the petitioner was asked to report before the Office of the Inspector General, Jharkhand Sector of CRPF in connection to verification of certain documents relating to SSF Accounts of the Office. The petitioner reported to the Office of the

¶56

Page 4 of 20

¶57

IG, Jharkhand Sector, Ranchi after obtaining due permission from his superior Officer. On 19.09.2019, when he had reported to the Office, he was handed over to the Civil Police of Nagari Police Station in the district of Ranchi. He was taken into custody by the police authorities in connection to Nagari Police Station Case No. 157/2019 under Sections 407/468/471/419/420/409 of the IPC.

¶58

It is contended that the FIR before the Nagari Police Station was lodged by one Ramesh Kumar Jena who introduced himself as the Personal Secretary of Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Sector where anomalies with regard to SSF Account No. 31303458311 was alleged and the FIR was lodged. He was put under suspension with effect from 27.09.2019 (wrongly quoted as 2018 in the order) in terms of Rule 10(2) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide order No. 1-45022/89/98-Pers-1 dated 30.04.2002. The petitioner was thereafter allowed to go on bail on 18.04.2020. After being released on bail, the petitioner sent an E- mail to the IG(Operations), Jharkhand and Group Centre, Jamshedpur by an E-mail dated 20.04.2020. By the said E-mail, he had intimated the authorities that he had been released on bail and has reached his home in Ranchi and requesting to arrange for Train Ticket or road transport from Ranchi to Group Centre, Jamshedpur for his journey. This E-mail was replied on 21.04.2020 whereby he was informed his declared headquarter is Group Centre, Jamshedpur and he is to take necessary directions in this regard for his controlling authority. On the same day, the petitioner sent an E- mail to DIG, Group Centre, CRPF, Jamshedpur. With reference to the earlier E-mail received seeking direction as to how the petitioner should reach Group Centre, Jamshedpur from Ranchi during the lockdown period.

¶59

On 23.04.2020, the Group Centre, Jamshedpur replied to the E-mail instructing the petitioner to remain in home till the lockdown period is over. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed by the Deputy

¶60

Page 5 of 20

¶61

Inspector General regarding the availability of unit vehicle which is likely to return back to Jharkhand Sector and accordingly he was asked to liaison with the control room and accompany the said vehicle for his journey for Ranchi to Group Centre, Jamshedpur. In terms of the said instructions, the petitioner travelled back to Jamshedpur and reported before the Group Centre on 22.04.2020. He filed a representation on 30.05.2020 for release of subsistence allowance for the period of February, 2020 to April, 2020. Further representations were made requesting for release of subsistence allowance. He thereafter submitted a representation on 20.06.2020 requesting for a change of the declared headquarter during his suspension period as he is required to attend Court cases in Ranchi. However, the representations preferred by the petitioner were taken into account but he was kept under the Commandant Control of the Office of the Inspector General (Operation), Jorhat/Group Centre, Khatkati. Thereafter by order dated 23.06.2020, the petitioner’s headquarter was changed to the Inspector General of Police (Operation), CRPF, Jorhat but he was to be posted in Group Centre, Khatkati.

¶62

3. By Memorandum dated 18.09.2020, the memorandum of charge was served on the petitioner containing one article of charge. The memorandum was enclosed with a statement of article of charges as well as statement of imputation of misconduct and the list of documents and witnesses to be relied upon by the department in the proceedings contemplated.

¶63

4. Pursuant to the said memorandum of charge enclosed with the articles and imputation of the allegations, the petitioner sought for certain documents pursuant to which the same were denied by the

¶64

Page 6 of 20

¶65

authorities and he was urged not to ask any further documents. However, the petitioner filed his written statement on 25.01.2021. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer along with the Presenting Officer was appointed on 02.03.2021. Prior to the hearing of the departmental proceedings being conducted, petitioner was permitted to leave headquarters for 20 days to attend trials in subordinate Courts in Ranchi as well as for other personal works with effect from 14.04.2021 to 03.05.2021. When the petitioner was on leave, the country was reeling under the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner’s health condition also deteriorated andhe was admitted to a hospital in Ranchi for emergency psychiatric treatment, diagnosed with mental stress/illness by the medical consultant. Subsequently on 05.05.2021, the petitioner consulted the Ranchi Institute of Neuro-Psychiatry and Allied Sciences in Ranchi. Pursuant to the communication received from the Inspector General, Jorhat with a direction to report and consult in the Composite Hospital, CRPF Ranchi, the petitioner availed consultation in the Composite Hospital. The Composite Hospital, CRPF referred the petitioner again to the Ranchi Institute of Neuro-Psychiatry and Allied Sciences. The petitioner availed treatment in the said hospital on several days. However, because of his medical condition and the treatment that he was undergoing, he

¶66

Page 7 of 20

¶67

could not proceed to his headquarter and participate in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry proceedings therefore proceeded ex-parte and by enquiry report dated 06.06.2022, the enquiry officer held the charges to be proved. Pursuant to the completion of the enquiry, the petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report. Upon receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 26.07.2022 giving full details of his medical condition as well as his reply to the finding in the enquiry report. A similar representation was also preferred before the Director General, CRPF which however, has not been disposed of. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report by the disciplinary authority. Pursuant to which, the petitioner has approached this Court. This Court while issuing notice directed that no penalty be imposed on the petitioner on the basis of enquiry report till the returnable date. This order came to be extended subsequently and is still subsisting.

¶68

5. In so far as the W.P.(C) No. 350/2023 is concerned, the substance of charge was that while he was posted and functioning as Assistant Commandant/Personal Secretary to the Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Sector, CRPF, Ranchi, he had fraudulently and illegally got sanctioned House Rent Allowances @ 16% of his basic pay by submitting false documents despite availing the facility of

¶69

Page 8 of 20

¶70

Government Quarter allotted in his name by the Government of Jharkhand. He was denied to provide the required documents by the Department being sought for his application to submit his reply against the memorandum of charges dated 18.09.2020 issued by the DIG, Group Centre, CRPF, Khatkhati.

¶71

6. In so far as the W.P(C) No. 360/2023 is concerned, the substance of charges were regarding alleged wrong information regarding payments for purchase of flat in his name, not furnished required information regarding purchase of a Royal Enfield Motor Cycle in his own name, not disclosed the source of fund and amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as part payment of loan amount and regarding purchase of a Mahindra XUV 500 Car. His request for being provided with the required documents enabling him to submit his reply against the memorandum of charges dated 19.01.2021 issued by the DIG (CR & VIG) was also declined.

¶72

7. In so far as the W.P(C) No. 456/2023 is concerned, there are as many as eight article of charges against the petitioner. His request for the required documents from the Department, which were sought

¶73

for submitting his reply to the memorandum of charges dated 16.10.2020 issued by the DIG (CR & VIG), was also declined by the respondent authorities.

¶74

Page 9 of 20

¶75

8. Pursuant to the show cause notices issued to the petitioner enclosing the memorandum of charges and the statements of allegations, in respect of each of the proceedings initiated, the petitioner represented before the authorities for furnishing certain documents in order that he may submit his reply against the memorandum of charges. This application seeking the documents was rejected. He was not able to submit his written statements as the application seeking documents from the Disciplinary Authority was also rejected. While the petitioner was under treatment for his mental illness, he received a communication from the Enquiry Officer asking him to appear before the enquiry proceedings. However, in view of the treatment being availed of by the petitioner and in view of his state of health he was unable to participate in the enquiry proceedings.

¶76

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while the petitioner was on leave and the country was reeling under the Second Wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner’s health condition deteriorated and he was admitted in the hospital at Ranchi for emergency psychiatric treatment and he was diagnosed with mental stress/illness by the medical consultant. It is submitted that on 05.05.2021 the petitioner also consulted with Ranchi Institute of

¶77

Page 10 of 20

¶78

Neuro-Psychiatry and Allied Sciences and also in deference to a communication received from the Inspector General, Jorhat directing the petitioner to report before the Composite Hospital, CRPF Ranchi, the petitioner availed consultation in the Composite Hospital. The Composite Hospital, CRPF Ranchi referred the petitioner to Ranchi Institute of Neuro-Psychiatry and Allied Sciences. This treatment was availed of by the petitioner for several days because of his severe medical condition and the treatment that he was undergoing because of which he could not proceed to the Head Quarter and participated in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry proceedings, therefore, proceeded ex parte and by enquiry report dated 06.06.2022 the Enquiry Officer held the charges to be proved against the writ petitioner.

¶79

10. The petitioner was thereafter served with a copy of the enquiry report and pursuant to which he preferred a representation dated 26.07.2022 giving full details of his medical condition as well as a reply to the findings in the enquiry report. A similar representation was also preferred before the Director General, CRPF which however has not been disposed of. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the person suffered from medical ailments, more particularly, mental illness and

¶80

Page 11 of 20

¶81

the medical documents duly certify the same, under such circumstances, the authorities ought not to have proceeded and completed the enquiry proceedings ex-parte. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal and Another vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2023) 2 SCC 209. He submits that in the said judgment, the Apex Court, in similar circumstances, recognized the rights of a delinquent officer stated to be suffering from mental illness under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.Pressing the judgment into service, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a person who is suffering from mental illness and which illness has been duly certified by the medical professionals and which fact has also not been denied by the respondents, is entitled to be given the benefits of rights prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. He submits that the mental illness which he has been suffering from and for which he has been undergoing treatment is accepted to be disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and therefore the authorities ought not to have proceeded with the enquiry ex-parte. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities ought to have examined his claims and given him the due benefits as prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

¶82

Page 12 of 20

¶83

Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that ex parte enquiry proceedings against the petitioner be interfered with, set aside and quashed. He should be reinstated with all service benefits and permits him to render his services till his superannuation from service.

¶84

11. Mr. K Gogoi, learned CGC on the other hand disputes the contentions of the petitioner. He submits that inspite of opportunities being granted, the petitioner deliberately did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. Left with no alternative, the enquiry proceeded ex-parte. He submits that the respondents have contested the case of the petitioner by filing their counter affidavits and the averments made in the writ petition by the petitioner have been disputed. Referring to the said affidavit Mr. Gogoi submits that the petitioner was well aware of the fact that he was on leave and that the period of leave was getting over. Despite returning to his Head Quarter where he was posted and despite the charges being framed and the petitioner being aware of the enquiry proceedings initiated against him, he deliberately avoided participation in the said proceedings on the pretext of the documents not being furnished to him. The petitioner declined to avail of all the opportunities offered to him to participate in the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer examined

¶85

Page 13 of 20

¶86

all the materials placed before him and after concluding the proceedings, had submitted the enquiry report holding that the charges have been proved against the writ petitioner. Mr. K Gogoi, learned CGC disputed the contention raised by the petitioner that because of the health condition suffered by the writ petitioner he was unable to take part in the enquiry proceedings. He therefore submits that there is no infirmity in the proceedings initiated and that apart, there is a statutory appellate forum which the petitioner did not avail of and therefore, on the ground of existence of alternative remedy itself the writ petition should be dismissed and the enquiry proceedings and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority ought not to be interfered with. He further submits that the enquiry report was referred to the UPSC for their views on the quantum of penalty and the views of the UPSC are still awaited. In view of the interim order, the matter was not proceeded further at the level of the UPSC.

¶87

12. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Pleadings on record have been carefully perused. The provisions of the relevant statutes have also been noted.

¶88

13. The fact that the petitioner underwent medical treatment for his health condition as he claims to be suffering from the mental illness

¶89

Page 14 of 20

¶90

is not in dispute and is supported by medical records. Although the Composite Hospital Medical Board issued him a fitness certificate it is mentioned therein that he is a case of severe depressive episode with psychotic symptoms but he is asymptomatic and therefore, in the opinion of the Medical Board, he is fit to resume his duties. The Medical Board, however, opined that he needs regular follow up treatment.

¶91

14. In judgment referred to by the petitioner, the Apex Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra) elaborately examined the rights of persons under the erstwhile Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The notification of 2002 exempting the CRPF from certain provisions under the Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 has also been examined. In Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra) the Apex Court held that the proceedings initiated against the litigant therein, who was also an employee under the CRPF, was initiated during the currency of 1995 Act. By the time the matter came to be decided by the Writ Appellate Court in the Gauhati High Court, the earlier Act was repealed and the new Act i.e. the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 came into force. As such, the Apex Court while deciding the matter had examined the rights of a person suffering from disability including the

¶92

Page 15 of 20

¶93

mental illness examined the various provisions of both the enactments to determine the rights that would accrue if any, to the litigant and to the employer under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 as well as the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

¶94

15. In the ultimate analysis the Apex Court held that the mental health disorders are recognized as disability as long as they fulfill the defining criteria. The Apex Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra) held that the duty of providing reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities is sacrosanct. All possible alternatives must be considered before ordering dismissal from service. However, there are accepted defences to this principle. The well-recognised exception to this rule is that the duty to accommodate must not cause undue hardship or impose a disproportionate burden on the employer – the interpretation of these concepts may vary in each jurisdiction.” The Apex Court further held that Mental health disorders pose a unique challenge in disability rights adjudication. Very often, persons are not aware of or are in denial of their mental disability. Even if they hold the awareness, to avoid stigma and discrimination, they tend to not disclose their mental illness before an incident of purported misconduct. Thus, they may fall foul of the requirement to request a reasonable accommodation.

¶95

Page 16 of 20

¶96

The Apex Court finally arrived at the following conclusion:

¶97

“E. Conclusion

¶98

In view of the discussion above, we summarise our findings below:

¶99

The validity of the disciplinary proceedings shall be determined against the provisions of the RPwD Act 2016 instead of the PwD Act 1995 for the following reasons:

¶100

147.1. The respondent holds a privilege under the 2002 notification to not comply with the principles of non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation provided under Section 47 of the PwD Act. However, Mattias Kumm, Political Liberalism and the Structure of Rights: On the place and limits of the proportionality requirement, in LAW, RIGHTS AND DISCOURSE: THEMES FROM THE LEGAL PHILOSOPHY OF ROBERT ALEXY 131-166 (George Pavlakos ed., Hart2007) PART E for a privilege to accrue in terms of Section 6 of the GCA, mere expectation or hope is not sufficient. Rather, the privilege-holder must have done an act to avail of the right. The privilege provided by the 2002 notification would accrue only when one of the punishments provided under Section 47 has been imposed. However, in the instant case, the disciplinary proceedings were challenged even before the punishment stage could be reached. Therefore, the privilege available to the respondent under the 2002 notification was not accrued in terms of Section 6 of the GCA;

¶101

147.2. Section 47 of the PwD Act is not the sole source of the right of equality and non-discrimination held by persons with disability. The principle of nondiscrimination guides the entire statute whose meaning and content find illumination in Article 5 of the CRPD. An interpretation that furthers international law or gives effect to international law must be preferred. Therefore, even though the PwD Act does not have an express provision laying down the principle of equality vis-à-vis disabled persons, it will have to be read into the statute; and

¶102

147.3. The 2002 notification is not saved by Section 102 of the RPwD Act since Section 20 of the RPwD Act is not corresponding to Section 47 of the PwD Act;

¶103

The disciplinary proceedings are discriminatory and violative of the provisions of the RPwD for the following reasons:

¶104

148.1. A person with a disability is entitled to protection under the RPwD Act as long as the disability was one of the factors for the discriminatory act; and

¶105

148.2. The mental disability of a person need not be the sole cause of the misconduct that led to the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. Any residual

¶106

Page 17 of 20

¶107

control that persons with mental disabilities have over their conduct merely diminishes the extent to which the disability contributed to the conduct. The mental disability impairs the ability of persons to comply with workplace standards in comparison to their able-bodied counterparts. Such persons suffer a disproportionate disadvantage due to the impairment and are more likely to be subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against persons with mental disabilities is a facet of indirect discrimination.

¶108

The disciplinary proceedings against the appellant relating to the first enquiry are set aside. The appellant is also entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act in the event he is found unsuitable for his current employment duty. While re-assigning the appellant to an alternate post, should it become necessary, his pay, emoluments and conditions of service must be protected. The authorities will be at liberty to ensure that the assignment to an alternate post does not involve the use of or control over fire-arms or equipment which may pose a danger to the appellant or others in or around the workplace.

¶109

The Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶110

16. Coming to the fact of the present writ petitions also, in view of

¶111

the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra) and in view of the fact that the petitioner having underwent medical treatment for his mental illness and also in view of the

¶112

mandate of Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, this Court is of the view that the Disciplinary Authority will now have to examine the matter from the stand point of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra) read with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Rules made thereunder and thereafter, pass appropriate orders. While passing such an order the Disciplinary Authority is required to take special care to ensure that the Rights of

¶113

Page 18 of 20

¶114

Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, more particularly, under Section 20 of the said Act are not violated. Before passing such order, the medical condition of the writ petitioner may be examined by referring to the petitioner to the Composite Hospital CRPF, Guwahati. In such an event the Composite Hospital, CRPF Guwahati will constitute a Medial Board, comprising of qualified psychiatrist and such other qualified medical professionals as deemed necessary. This medical professionals as a part of the medical Board will examine the petitioner as per the procedure prescribed and thereafter, render an opinion as regards his status of the mental illness claimed to have been suffered by the petitioner and the extent of his disability, if so, established. The Disciplinary Authority will thereafter pass a speaking order in terms of the directions above within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of the opinion of the Medical Board of the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Guwahati, as has been directed to be constitute. The Authorities in the Composite Hospital CRPF will constitute the Medical Board as directed within a period of 30 (thirty days) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and will ensure proper intimation being given to the petitioner and also his guardians/caregivers including his spouse if available. The petitioner and his guardians/caregivers will ensure that the petitioner remain present for proper medical examination before the Medical

¶115

Page 19 of 20

¶116

Board of the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Guwahati as have been directed in this order within the time frame specified. The petitioner may also file his reply/representation, if any, before the Disciplinary Authority in his support.

¶117

17. With the above observations, the writ petitions stand closed and disposed of.

¶118

18. The directions above will be applicable in respect of all the three writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 350/2023; W.P.(C) No. 360/2023 and W.P(C) No. 456/2023 and the enquiry proceedings conducted or initiated vide Memorandum dated 18.09.2020, 19.01.2021 and 16.10.2020 respectively.

¶119

Till the order as directed above is passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Interim order passed will continue to operate.

¶120

JUDGE

¶121

Comparing Assistant

¶122

Page 20 of 20

Santosh Kumar v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankar Medhi Vs the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Smti Sabina Bibi Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

No C5027821N Warrant Officer Pa Anand Kushwaha Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

No. Jc- 361873A Naib Subedar Clerk Md. Munna Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Santosh Kumar Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Santosh Kumar Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.