Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohinder Chhabra vs Union Of India And Others on 6 March, 2014
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-3734-CAT-2003
Date of decision:-06.03.2014
Mohinder Chhabra
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present: Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate,
for the respondents.
****
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, C.J. (ORAL)
Strange are the ways of the officers of the respondent-Ministry! An employee who is suffering from chronic schizophrenia and is under treatment of the own hospitals of the respondent is sought to be removed from service for absence from duty during the same period which can hardly be willful. Not only that, even endeavours made by learned counsel for the petitioner to put an end to the dispute as also suggestions which flowed from the Court have met with only a negative response possibly because no officer of the respondent considers himself responsible for the financial consequences which would now flow arising from the present petition.
Now coming to the facts of the case. The petitioner was appointed as a Chargeman (B) on being selected through the process Sharma Amodhcarried on by the Railway Recruitment Board on 20.09.1989. The 2014.03.07 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-3734-CAT-2003 2 petitioner went through the complete medical examination and a training course and was thereafter re-designated as JE-II. Unfortunately, after a period of two years in service, the petitioner started suffering from a psychiatric illness and remained under treatment of the hospitals of the respondent-department at LLR Hospital, RCF, Kapurthala and Railways Central Hospital, New Delhi. The petitioner was re-examined on 28.04.1992 by the Psychiatrist at the Central Hospital in New Delhi and was declared fit.
Unfortunately, the petitioner had a second bout in 1998 when he remained under treatment for chronic schizophrenia. He was declared fit after treatment to perform his duty on 21.01.1999, but on being posted, it was opined by the department that he was not fit to perform his duties. The petitioner again fell sick on 10.05.1999 and could not resume his duties suffering from the chronic disease and the condition of the petitioner became worse with the result that he had to be taken to the General Hospital in Delhi on 02.07.1999.
The aforesaid facts show that the petitioner has been under constant treatment of the respondent's hospitals itself. Surprisingly and shockingly when the petitioner was under treatment, respondent No. 4 served a chargesheet dated 09.07.1999 on the petitioner which was delivered to him in July, 1999 at his home address. The sole charge against the petitioner was of absence from duty from 10.05.1999 when he was under treatment.
The petitioner was again declared medically fit on 06.08.1999 and resumed his duties soon thereafter when he appeared before the Sharma Amodh 2014.03.07 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-3734-CAT-2003 3 Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was visited with the consequences of removal from service and the appellate authority, revisionary authority and even the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the claim of the petitioner.
In our view, the inquiry suffers from a fundamental flaw i.e. can a person suffering from chronic schizophrenia be said to be absenting from duty when he was under treatment for the same disease and that too willfully? The Enquiry Officer himself finds that the petitioner has been suffering from mental problems. This is apparent from the observation of the Enquiry Officer and the report dated 13.08.1999 which reads as under:-
"From the documents and statement of Sh. Mohinder Chhabra it appears that Sh. Mohinder Chhabra has been feeling mental trouble and imbalance from the about last 9 years."
Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, yet surprisingly, the Enquiry Officer observes thereafter that the petitioner was absent from duty unauthorizedly for the period from 10.05.1999 to 29.06.1999 on which date he was referred to the Central Hospital as during this period of time he or his relatives did not inform the authorities about the cause of absence from duty. Once the petitioner is himself a chronic case of schizophrenia, it is not understood as to how he could have informed the department of his problem. To draw an adverse inference because the family members also did not inform would be stretching the case too far. It is not an isolated incident, but a continuing mental problem of the petitioner for a period of 09 years. Rather than looking to an Sharma Amodh 2014.03.07 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-3734-CAT-2003 4 employee with sympathy in such a situation, such a drastic order was passed which is not sustainable. Thus, the petitioner is deprived even of the medical assistance which would have been forthcoming had he been on the rolls of the respondent and really speaking the respondents are to be blamed for the petitioner being in the worst position medically now.
It appears to us that none of the authorities below have endeavoured to appreciate the effect of schizophrenia. In the recent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Veer Pal Singh Vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence, 2013(8) SCC 83, the effect of schizophrenia has been specifically explained by referring to the various medical material in this behalf the relevant portion of which is extracted below:-
"13. In Merriam-Webster Dictionary "Schizophrenia" has been described as a psychotic disorder characterized by loss of contact with the environment, by noticeable deterioration in the level of functioning in everyday life, and by disintegration of personality expressed as disorder of feeling, thought (as in delusions), perception (as in hallucinations), and behavior- called also dementia praecox; Schizophrenia is a chronic, severe, and disabling brain disorder that has affected people throughout history.
14. National Institute of Mental Health, USA has described "Schizophrenia" in the following words:
"Schizophrenia is a chronic, severe, and disabling brain disorder that has affected people throughout history. People with the disorder may hear voices other people don't hear. They may believe other people are Sharma Amodh 2014.03.07 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-3734-CAT-2003 5 reading their minds, controlling their thoughts, or plotting to harm them. This can terrify people with the illness and make them withdrawn or extremely agitated. People with schizophrenia may not make sense when they talk. They may sit for hours without moving or talking. Sometimes people with schizophrenia seem perfectly fine until they talk about what they are really thinking. Families and society are affected by schizophrenia too. Many people with schizophrenia have difficulty holding a job or caring for themselves, so they rely on others for help. Treatment helps relieve many symptoms of schizophrenia, but most people who have the disorder cope with symptoms throughout their lives. However, many people with schizophrenia can lead rewarding and meaningful lives in their communities."
In the aforesaid judgement, the various categories of schizophrenia have also been discussed, but we do not consider it necessary to reproduce the said material for purposes of adjudication of the present case.
In an article 'the effects of schizophrenia on the brain' by Adina Cazaban, it has been observed that schizophrenia affects one to two percent of people worldwide and that it can develop at an early age. Most men become ill between the ages of 16 and 25 years. There is no definitive answer as to what causes the disorders, but it is believed to be a combination of factors including genetic make-up, pre-natal viruses, and early brain damage which cause neurotransmitter problems in the brain.
Sharma Amodh 2014.03.07 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-3734-CAT-2003 6
If the concerned authority had taken care to just analyze the medical history of schizophrenia, we are sure, the issue would not have been dealt with in such a casual fashion.
We may note that learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the long pendency of the lis and without prejudice to rights and contentions of the petitioner had even proposed that if admissible pension was given, he would persuade the petitioner and his family to put an end to the dispute. This fact was recorded in our order dated 12.02.2014. On the next date on 03.03.2014, we were informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was really no improvement in the medical condition of the petitioner. However, on instructions, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the petitioner cannot be granted any pension as out of the total period of more than 10 years of service, which would make the petitioner admissible to pension, there is a non-qualified service of 02 years, 10 months and 19 days. Strangely, this non-qualified service pertains to the period when the petitioner was suffering from schizophrenia and, thus, could have been easily waived away. Learned counsel for the petitioner even prayed for this non-qualified service to be counted in view of the judgements of the Rajasthan High Court as well as of this Court in Paras Ram Vs State of Rajasthan and others 2012(8) SLR 35 and Union of India Vs Smt. Shakuntala Devi and others 2009(8) SLR 698 respectively.
Learned counsel for the respondents took some time to obtain instructions and today insisted that not even pension could be Sharma Amodh 2014.03.07 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-3734-CAT-2003 7 given to the petitioner as non-qualified service cannot be counted towards the pensionable service period.
We may only note here that the issue is not one of counting the non-qualified service towards total service period, but that this non- qualified service is arising from the petitioner not joining the duty at the time when he was suffering from chronic schizophrenia.
Faced with this position, we have been called upon to examine the main controversy itself as the settlement was not acceptable to the respondents and, thus, we have proceeded to pen down our view.
We are, thus, clearly and unequivocally of the opinion that the action of the respondents in initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner on account of absence from duty when he was suffering from schizophrenia is completely illegal and unsustainable in law. The petitioner was under the treatment of the own doctors of the respondent-authorities. There are various certificates on record by the officers of the respondent-authorities itself to show that the petitioner was not capable of carrying on the task, inter alia, vide annexures annexed to the OA. How could the petitioner in such a heartless manner be thrown out of service in such a situation! It was not as if the petitioner was being thrown out of service on account of incapacity to perform duties, but the charge against the petitioner was unauthorized willful absence from duty which could hardly be sustained. Thus, the complete inquiry proceedings against the petitioner are nonest.
We, thus, set aside the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner and hold that the petitioner is entitled to all the monetary Sharma Amodh 2014.03.07 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-3734-CAT-2003 8 benefits arising therefrom on account of continuity of service till his superannuation. In case, the petitioner has been taking treatment after his services had been dispensed with, he will be entitled to reimbursement of the same as he would in normal circumstances have been treated in the hospitals of the respondent-authorities.
The inquiry initiated is, thus, set aside; the order of the disciplinary authority, the revisionary authority and the Central Administrative Tribunal are set aside and the petition is allowed with costs quantified at ` 10,000/-.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 06.03.2014 Amodh Sharma Amodh 2014.03.07 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh