Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/2 vs Santosh Kumar on 6 March, 2026
Author: M. Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/21
GAHC010204872025
2026:GAU-AS:3362
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/15/2026
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 9 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW
DELHI, PIN-110001.
2: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
BLOCK NO. 1
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI
PIN 110003
3: THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL (CR AND VIG)
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
BLOCK NO. 1
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI
PIN 110003
4: THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
NORTH EASTERN SECTOR CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
SHILLONG
MEGHALAYA PIN 793001
5: THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATION SECTOR
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
POLICE COMPLEX
ROWRIAH
JORHAT
Page No.# 2/21
ASSAM
PIN 785004
6: BHARAT KUMAR VAISHNAV (IRLAA 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 110003
7: L. KIPGEN
(IRLA 70450)
DEPUTY COMMANDANT GROUUP 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 110003
8: 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 110003
9: RADHE SHYAM SINGH
COMMANDANT (IRL 4692)
COMMANDANT 94
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
Page No.# 3/21
PIN 110003
10: MAHESH VISHWAKARMA
SECOND IN COMMAND (IRLA 6538) 112 BATTALION
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
C/O OFFICE OF THE DG
CRPF
BLOCK NO. 1
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI 11000
VERSUS
SANTOSH KUMAR
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 POLCE FORCE,
KHATKHATI, KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN-782480.
Advocate for the Petitioner : HAREESH GUPTA,
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D GOGOI, MS T WAPANGLA,MR. R DEKA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
06.03.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, i.e., Union of India and Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner).
2. The impugned common judgment and order dated 06.03.2025 passed in WP(C) Nos. 350/2023, 360/2023 is under challenge by way of this appeal.
Page No.# 4/21
3. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 06.03.2025, has directed the appellants not to conclude the three inquiry proceedings initiated against the respondent, until and unless the alleged mental illness of the respondent is examined by the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Guwahati, comprising of a qualified psychiatrist and such other qualified medical professionals as deemed necessary. The learned Single Judge held that after the Medical Board of the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Guwahati, undertakes a proper medical examination of the respondent and makes its decision, in terms of Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner should be allowed to file his reply/representation to the 3 Inquiry Reports in relation to the three Inquiry Proceedings, before the Disciplinary Authority.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the three Inquiry proceedings had been initiated against the respondent, who is an Assistant Commandant in the CRPF, due to various charges of misconduct, which the respondent wilfully did not participate in. The respondent was also given the opportunity to engage a defence assistant. However, as the respondent did not participate, ex-parte Inquiry Proceedings were held against him. The three Inquiry Reports were also furnished to the respondent, to enable him to file representations against the same. Instead of filing representation/s against the Inquiry Reports, the respondent instead made a challenge to the three Inquiry Proceedings and Inquiry Reports, vide WP(C) Nos. 350/2023, 360/2023 and 456/2023, on the ground that as he was having some physical and mental impairment, i.e., he was a "person with disability" in terms of Section 2(s) of the Act, the Inquiry Proceedings should not be concluded till he was fully cured. Due Page No.# 5/21 to the learned Single Judge passing an interim order directing that no penalty should be imposed on the respondent, unless and until a Medical Examination of the respondent was conducted, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 06.03.2025, the respondent is still working in the CRPF as on date.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of an Exemption Notification dated 18.08.2021 having been issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Section 20 of the Act for combatant personnel of CAPFs, the respondent is not entitled to get any relief under Section 20 of the Act. He also submits that the principles laid down in the case of Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal and Another vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2023) 2 SCC 209 cannot be applied to the present case, as the writ petition had been filed in the year 2023, i.e. after issuance of the Exemption Notification dated 18.08.2021. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra), the preliminary question to be decided was as to whether disciplinary proceedings could be instituted against the conduct of an employee, who allegedly had a mental disability and whether the alleged misconduct was found to be connected to the mental disability of the employee.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the present case, the allegation of misconduct/charges framed against the respondent, was in relation to a period prior to the respondent having made any claim before the authorities that he was suffering from any mental disability, in terms of Section 2(s) of the Act and, as such, the issue of whether the respondent suffered from Page No.# 6/21 any mental impairment at the relevant point of time was not an issue. He submits that the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge not having addressed the main subject matter in issue, i.e. as the respondent did not have any mental disability/impairment at the relevant point of time, the issue of mental disability/impairment from a period after the alleged misconduct, was irrelevant.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner) submits that the respondent had been suffering from mental disability and this fact had been informed to the authorities by the respondent's wife on 26.07.2021. He also submits that in terms of the opinion of the Medical Board of Central Institute of Psychiatry, Kanke, Ranchi, made on 21.10.2022, in respect of a medical examination conducted on the respondent on 18.10.2022, the respondent suffered from severe depressive episode with psychotic symptoms, but currently he was asymptomatic. He submits that the respondent's case is covered by Section 20 of the Act and the respondent cannot be discriminated against in any Inquiry Proceeding, in terms of the said provisions. He accordingly submits that the impugned judgment and order does not suffer from any infirmity and the same should not be interfered with.
8. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
9. As can be seen from the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in respect of the three writ petitions filed by the respondent, the respondent has challenged the three Inquiry Proceedings, wherein the Inquiry Officer in the 3 Inquiry Reports has found the respondent to Page No.# 7/21 be guilty of all the charges framed against him in the three memorandum of charges dated 18.09.2020, 19.01.2021 and 16.10.2020.
10. In WP(C) 350/2023, which pertains to the memorandum of charge dated 18.09.2020, the respondent was charged with fraudulently and illegally getting HRA @ 6% of his Basic Pay sanctioned w.e.f. 06.10.2017 to 30.09.2019, while availing the benefit of a Government quarter in Ranchi, by submitting false documents and false undertaking certificates.
11. In WP(C) 360/2023 pertaining to the memorandum of charge dated 19.01.2021, four articles of charge had been framed against the respondent. Article -1 was with regard to purchase of a flat on 04.06.2019. The revised source of income for the flat in the respondent's application, was that he had withdrawn Rs. 2 lakhs from his salary savings, Rs.3.5 Lakhs from his GPF Account, Rs.4.0 Lakhs from the PPF Maturity and Rs.35,50,000/- from Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited as housing loan. However, the GPF and PPF amounts had not been actually withdrawn by the respondent during the said period. Article-2 was that the respondent had not furnished required information regarding the purchase of a Royal Enfield Motor Cycle and a Maruti Alto K-10 to the authorities. Article-3 was with regard to the respondent not disclosing the source of income of Rs.2 Lakh in his application dated 14.09.2015 for purchase of a Maruti S Cross Car. Article-4 was with regard to the respondent not furnishing the required information regarding the purchase of Mahindra XUV-500 car in February, 2016, amounting to Rs.13,08,280/-.
12. In WP(C) 456/2023, the memorandum of charge dated 16.10.2020 Page No.# 8/21 contained eight articles of charge against the respondent, who was posted as AC(PS) to IG, Jharkhand Sector Quarters, CRPF, Ranchi. The articles of charge in the memorandum of charge dated 16.10.2020 was basically with regard to the respondent destroying the original secret cipher messages regarding remittances of a sum of Rs. 12.5 Lakh and falsifying and fabricating secret cipher messages showing deposits of Rs.10 Lakhs only, thereby embezzling Rs. 2.5 Lakhs on various occasions for his personal gain.
13. In the memorandum of charge dated 16.10.2020, the respondent had also unauthorizedly linked his personal mobile No. 9430120739 with the official bank account No. 31303458311 in favour of the IGP (Ops), CRPF, Ranchi in SBI Branch of Hatia, to receive SMS alerts in place of the authorised account holder of the above account, i.e., DIGP, Jharkhand Sector, CRPF, Ranchi without his permission and had continued having the link even after moving to the office of the IG, CRPF, Jorhat, Assam. The other article of charge against the respondent in the memorandum of charge dated 16.10.2020 was that he had entered into huge financial transactions in his salaried bank account bearing No. 10158066014 of SBI Branch, R. K. Puram, New Delhi, with his subordinates and the force personnel having official dealings. Further, he had withdrawn Rs.25,18,000/- from the official bank account no. 31303458311 in favour of IGP(Ops), CRPF, Jharkhand, SBI Branch of Hatia, Ranchi, by way of eight different transactions. He deposited a part of it but not all of it, as per the SSF cash book. Further, the respondent did not hand over three official rubber stamps issued to him for official use to his counterpart, while handing over the charge of his office on 16.07.2019. Instead, he had handed over three different rubber stamps, which were unauthorizedly fabricated/prepared by him for wilful Page No.# 9/21 misuse and personal gain.
14. Though the respondent had been given the opportunity to be represented by a defence assistant, he chose not to do so in all the three Inquiry Reports and he also did not participate in the inquiry proceedings. After completion of the ex-parte inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer made 3 Inquiry Reports in respect of all the three inquiry proceedings. The three Inquiry Reports were forwarded to the respondent for his representation/s, vide forwarding letters dated 19.10.2022, 13.07.2022 and 15.09.2022. Instead of making any representations/replies to the three Inquiry Reports, the respondent challenged the three Inquiry Reports by way of the three writ petitions mentioned above. He prayed to set aside and quash the ex-parte Inquiry Proceedings and the Inquiry Reports.
15. It is also to be noted that FIR 157/2019 dated 19/09/2019 under section 467/468/471/419/420/409 IPC had been registered against the respondent and he was arrested by the Jharkhand State Police on 20/09/2019 in connection with embezzlement of Government money. The above was the start of all the Inquiry Proceedings initiated against the respondent.
16. The learned Single Judge disposed of the three writ petitions by way of the impugned common judgment and order dated 06.03.2025, by applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra). The learned Single Judge held that the respondent had undergone medical treatment for his mental illness and in view of the mandate of Section 20 of the Act, the Disciplinary Authority would have to examine the matter from the stand Page No.# 10/21 point of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra), read with the provisions of the Act, specifically 20 of the Act. The respondent should also be examined by a Medical Board of the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Guwahati and after the opinion of the Medical Board is given, the respondent may file his reply/representation before the Disciplinary Authority. Till the same was done, no penalty was to be imposed upon the respondent in relation to the three Inquiry Proceedings, which were stayed by way of interim orders.
17. Section 20 of the Act provides for non-discrimination in employment and states that no Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment and that no Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service. Section 20 of the Act is reproduced herein below as follows:
"20. Non-discrimination in employment (1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.
(2) Every Government establishment shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees with disability.
(3) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability.
(4) No Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service:
Provided that, if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay Page No.# 11/21 scale and service benefits:
Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
(5) The appropriate Government may frame policies for posting and transfer of employees with disabilities."
18. As can be seen from Section 20 of the Act, the respondent cannot be discriminated against with regard to any disability acquired by him during his service. The Exemption Notification dated 18.08.2021 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, exempts all category of posts of combatant personnel of the CAPFs, including CRPF, from the ambit of Section 20 of the Act. Section 34 of the Act provides that the Government shall appoint in every Government establishment not less than 4% of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength of each group of posts meant to be filled up with persons with benchmark disabilities, 1% each shall be reserved for persons under Clause
(a), (b), (c), (d) & (e) persons with benchmark disabilities. The contents of the Exemption Notification dated 18.08.2021 is reproduced here-in-below, as follows :
"S.0. 3367(E). In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub- section (1) of section 20 and the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. 2016 (49 of 2016), the Central Government, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, having regard to the nature and type of work, hereby exempts all categories of combatant personnel of Central Armed Police Forces, namely, Border Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force, Central Industrial Security Force, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, Sashastra Seema Bal and Assam Rifles from the provisions of the said sections."
Page No.# 12/21
19. In the case of Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra), the issue to be decided was with regard to the appellant therein going into the chamber of DIGP, who was sitting with Commandant (staff) and with Assistant Commandant. The appellant then threatened them that he was obsessed with either to kill or and be killed and that he could shoot. It was in view of the fact situation therein that the action of the appellant, in making such a threat, was considered in terms of Section 20 of the Act. The issue as to whether the appellant therein suffered from a medical illness at the time of the alleged misconduct (threat), was to be decided.
20. It was in the above context that the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra) had held that the validity of the disciplinary proceedings would have to be determined against the provisions of the Act and that a person with disability was entitled to protection under the Act, as long as the mental disability was one of the factors for the misconduct.
21. The misconduct, i.e. the threat made by the Assistant Commandant in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra) was on 18/04/2010. The Officer had a history of obsessive compulsive disorder and depression from 2009 and undergoing treatment. He had been diagnosed with 40% to 70% of permanent disability by a Government Hospital. Three Inquiry Proceedings were initiated, the last being on 17/02/2015. Enquiry Reports on the first two Inquiry proceedings were completed prior to the initiation of the 3 rd Inquiry Report. These were challenged in the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, prior to the issuance of the Exemption Notification dated 18/08/2021. The Supreme Court held in para 58 that the right to non-discrimination in matters of Page No.# 13/21 employment provided under Section 20, accrued to the appellant therein on the filing of the Special Leave Petition, since the 2021 Exemption Notification had not been notified at the relevant time. Para 58 of the above judgement is reproduced herein below as follows :-
"58. Before proceeding to the merits of the case on the validity of the disciplinary proceedings vis-a-vis the provisions of the RPwD Act, the applicability of the 2021 notification to the facts of the present case will have to be determined. As explained above, on the repeal of the PwD Act by the RPwD Act, the 2002 Notification also lost its force of law. Between 27/12/2016, when the RPwD Act had come into force and 18/08/2021, when the 2021 notification was issued, there was no exemption notification in force. The Special Leave Petition was instituted on 5/10/2020. In Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Amrit Lal & Co. [(2001) 8 SCC 397], it was held that when a lis commences, all rights and obligations of the parties get crystallised on that date. Therefore, the rights of the parties would freeze as on the date of filing the Special Leave Petition. In the Special Leave Petition filed before this Court, it was submitted that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings is discriminatory and violative of the provisions of the RPwD Act. Therefore, the right to non-discrimination in matters of employment provided under Section 20, accrued to the appellant on the filing of the Special Leave Petition since the 2021 notification had not been notified at the relevant time. Thus, the 2021 notification would have no application to the facts of this case."
22. In the case of Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the appellant therein could not be removed from his service in view of Section 20 of the Act, as the Exemption Notification dated 18.08.2021 had not been in existence at the time of filing the SLP in the Supreme Court.
23. In the case of Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra), the very act of misconduct, i.e. the threat given by the appellant therein, would require one to Page No.# 14/21 determine whether the appellant was mentally stable at the time of his giving his threat to kill his superior officers. As it is settled law that a judgment is only a decision for what it decides and not what follows from it, the ratio in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra) cannot be applied in this case, as the fact situation in this case is different. The precedential value of a decision would lessen when there is difference in facts. As the facts in this case and in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra) are completely different, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was in error in applying the decision of the Supreme Court and Section 20(4) of the Act to the facts of this case.
24. The fact situation in the present case is however altogether different. At the time of the alleged misconduct as provided in three memorandum of charges, there is not a whisper made by the respondent that he was suffering from any mental illness, during the relevant period of the misconduct/s. The claim of mental illness had only surfaced after the Inquiry Proceedings had been initiated by the appellants.
25. In the present case, the challenge to the 3 Inquiry Proceedings had been initiated before the learned Single Judge only in the year 2023 and as such the exemption provided in the Exemption Notification would apply to this case.
26. Despite the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra) not being applicable to the facts of this case and as Section 20 of the Act was not applicable to the respondent's case in view of the Exemption Notification dated 18.08.2021, the learned Single Judge has applied the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal Page No.# 15/21 (supra) in the impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2025 disposing of the three writ petitions.
27. Para Nos. 16, 17 and 18 of the impugned judgment and order dated 06.03.2025 is reproduced herein below as follows:-
"16. Coming to the fact of the present writ petitions also, in view of 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 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 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 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.
Page No.# 16/21
17. With the above observations, the writ petitions stand closed and disposed of.
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.
Till the order as directed above is passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Interim order passed will continue to operate."
28. The issue herein is not with regard to reducing a person in rank on account of the alleged disability of the respondent, but with regard to whether there was misconduct committed by the respondent while in service. Further, the documents on record, specifically the inquiry report dated 19.10.2022 pertaining to WP(C) 350/2023, has clearly recorded the fact that the wife of the respondent, Smt. Kiran Kumari, had sent an e-mail dated 26.07.2021 to the authorities in Government NIC mail ID ([email protected]) of 142 Bn., intimating that the respondent was under treatment at RINPAS Hospital, Ranchi, w.e.f. 24.06.2021 due to mental illness, for which he was granted 2 months medical rest and again 1 month medical rest w.e.f. 07.07.2021. Though there is no document to prove the same, the respondent allegedly suffered from mental illness w.e.f. 24.06.2021, which was allegedly made known to the authorities only on 26.07.2021. However, the various acts of misconduct committed by the appellant in all the three memorandum of charges/Inquiry Proceedings, show that the misconducts had occurred much prior to the year 2020, when there is no whisper of the respondent having any mental illness.
29. As such, the issue in the present case is not with regard to whether the Page No.# 17/21 respondent was to be reduced in rank due to any mental illness that had been acquired during his service after the year 2020. The instances of misconduct in this case occurred prior to 2020. Further, the opinion of the Medical Board, CRPF, Kanke, Ranchi dated 21.10.2022 shows that the DIGP (Medical) Composite Hospital had written a letter dated 20.09.2021 for conducting a medical examination of the respondent before the Medical Board. However, the respondent had appeared before the Medical Board only on 08.10.2022. He was interviewed in detail by the Medical Board and his case record file and psychological assessment reports were reviewed. The opinion of the Medical Board was that the respondent was a case of severe depressive episode with psychotic symptoms, but that he was currently asymptomatic and as such, the Medical Board was of the opinion that the respondent was fit to resume his duties and that he needed regular follow up treatment. Severe depressive episode involves persistent intense sadness, hopelessness or loss of interest, which could severely impacting daily functioning. It is a mood disorder which can lead to a variety of emotional and physical problems. However, he was found to be asymptomatic at that time.
30. The opinion of the Medical Board dated 21.10.2022 is reproduced herein below as follows:-
Subject: Regarding opinion of Medical Board for fitness or otherwise of Sri Santosh Kumar CRF No-285685/A & UHID-20210013685.
Sir, With reference to your letter no- nil dated 20/09/2021 Index patient Sri Santosh Kumar presented himself before the Medical Board on 18/10/2022. He was interviewed in detail and his case record file and psychological assessment reports were reviewed. He is a case of severe depressive episode with psychotic symptoms, but currently he is asymptomatic. So, the Medical Board is of the Page No.# 18/21 opinion that at present he is fit to resume his duties. He needs regular follow-up treatment.
31. Section 2(s) of the Act states as follows :
"2(s) person with disability" means a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others"
As can be seen from the previous paragraph, at the time of his medical examination by the Medical Board on 18.10.2022, the respondent was found to be asymptomatic, which basically means that he showed no symptoms of having any severe depressive episode. In any event it is not the case of the respondent that he did not take HRA while occupying a Government quarter or that he had not committed the various acts of misconduct, as per the Charges framed in the Memorandum of Charges. The stand taken by the respondent is basically to the effect that the appellants have fabricated cases against him and that he was a person with mental disability.
32. In the case of Lalit Popli vs Canara Bank & Others, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 583, the Supreme Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review, to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice.
33. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors , reported Page No.# 19/21 in (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Supreme Court has held that the High Court cannot re- appreciate evidence and the Disciplinary Authority is the sole Judge of facts in departmental proceedings. As stated earlier, the question of misconduct was with regard to a period where there was no whisper that the appellant was suffering from any mental illness and as such, the only issue to be decided is whether the respondent was guilty of the charges framed against him at the relevant point of time. Though it can be argued that the respondent cannot be expected to defend himself properly, unless he is free from mental impairment, the report of the Medical Board dated 21.10.2022 does not prove that the appellant is suffering from any mental illness as of now. Further, it is surprising that the respondent is still working, though he claims to be mentally ill, especially when the Exemption Notification dated 18/08/2021 is applicable to the respondent's case. He appears to be mentally fit to work, but mentally ill to participate in the Inquiry Proceedings. There can be justification for not concluding the Inquiry Proceedings, as the respondent does not appear to be suffering any mental disability due to the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs.
34. As stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the decision of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal was undergoing medical treatment for his mental disorder since the year 2009 and his misconduct was connected to his mental disorder, which occurred in the year 2010. Further, the wife of the appellant in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra) was also a party to the case. She represented her husband as the appellant therein was having a mental disorder. In the present case, the wife of respondent herein is not a party. In Page No.# 20/21 fact, the respondent herein had signed all the affidavits in WP(C) Nos.350/2023, 360/2023 and 456/2023, stating that he was competent to swear the affidavits. All the affidavits have been made in the three writ petitions in the year 2022. Further, after the respondent had been examined by a Medical Board and the opinion of the Medical Board dated 21.10.2022 had opined that the respondent was asymptomatic, the respondent was taken back into service and is presently holding the post of Assistant Commandant in the office of the Inspector General (Operations). This holding of a sensitive post by the respondent, coupled with the fact that there is nothing stated by the appellants or the respondent that the respondent is unable to do his work properly, gives rise to an inference that the respondent is not having any mental illness or disability. In view of the Exemption Notification dated 18.08.2021, Section 20 of the Act is not applicable to the case of the respondent. Further, as the allegations of misconduct pertain to a period, prior to the respondent making a claim for any mental illness/disability, there is no justification for not concluding the Inquiry Proceedings. The same would have to be concluded, as there is nothing to show that the respondent is having mental disability.
35. In view of the fact that the 3 Inquiry Reports in relation to the three memorandum of charges dated 18.09.2020, 19.01.2021 and 16.10.2020 have been furnished to the respondent, the respondent shall submit representations to the 3 Inquiry Reports on merit, if not done earlier, inasmuch as, the charges of misconduct occurred during the time when he was not suffering from any mental illness. The said representation/s should be submitted by the respondent within a period of four weeks from today. In the event the respondent does not submit his representations to the three Inquiry Reports within the prescribed Page No.# 21/21 time period, the appellant shall have the liberty to conclude the three Inquiry Reports, even in the absence of the respondent's representations.
36. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 06.03.2025 passed in WP(C) Nos. 350/2023, 360/2023 and 456/2023 are hereby set aside.
37. The above being said, the respondent should be examined by a Medical Board, to determine if he is suffering from any mental illness. If he is found to be suffering from any mental illness or impairment, the concerned persons should be made aware of it for taking appropriate measures. If the respondent is found to be suffering from any mental illness, then the respondent may be sent on invalid pension or disability pension or take any other decision as per the relevant Service Rules, as the appellants deem fit and proper, in view of Section 20 of the Act not being applicable to case of the respondent.
38. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant