Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalit Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India on 24 March, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
WRIT PETITION No. 3224 of 2024
LALIT KUMAR YADAV
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
___________________________________________________________
Appearance:
Mr. M.P.S. Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Mr. Vineet -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Praveen Kumar Newaskar - Deputy Solicitor General for Union
of India.
&
WRIT PETITION No. 4890 of 2024
LALIT KUMAR YADAV
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. M.P.S. Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Mr. Vineet -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Praveen Kumar Newaskar - Deputy Solicitor General for
Union of India.
_____________________________________________________________________
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 03/24/2025
05:36:21 PM
2
Whether approved for reporting :Yes/No
Reserved on : 17.03.2025
Delivered on : 24.03.2025
ORDER
1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions. Since these petitions have been filed by the petitioner, wherein common issue is raised, both the petitions are being disposed off by common order.
W.P. No.4890/2024
2. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted as Deputy Commandant, Group Center, CRPF, Panihar, District Gwalior.
3. As per the allegations made, the petitioner, on 14.02.2019, while working as Deputy Commandant at GC, CRPF, Gwalior, misbehaved with Mr. Rajnish Ahlawat, Commandant, GC, CRPF, Gwalior by using derogatory and abusive/objectionable language. He attempted to attack his with thermos like bottle. It is also alleged that he also used derogatory and abusive language against DIG, GC, CRPF, Gwalior. It is further alleged that the petitioner, on 18.02.2019, in an inebriated stage, pressurized Mr. Paban Mech, Assistant Commandant (Min.) officiating as Mess Secretary, to open VIP room which is reserved for senior officers, for his three civilian guests. He also raised hand to attack Mr. Paban Mech without any Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 3 provocation. He also misbehaved with him and abused him and used derogatory words with regard to his caste.
4. It is further alleged that the petitioner, on intervening night of 19th & 20th February' 2019 at about 01:15 hours, snatched Government vehicle from Mr. Rajveer Singh and drove the vehicle and went to Administration Block of GC, CRPF and damaged Government property. He then went towards residence of Commandant and other officers and used abusive language against his senior officers. Another allegation against the petitioner is that in the month of January & February 2019, he misbehaved with other personnel of GC by using indecent and derogatory language. Thus, a charge sheet has been issued to him vide memo, dated 23.05.2019, (Annexure P/2). The enquiry has been conducted and enquiry report has been submitted by enquiry officer wherein two allegations have been found proved while other two are not proved. The copy of enquiry report has been forwarded to the petitioner vide memo, dated 23.06.2023, (Annexure P/1). The charge sheet and the enquiry report are under challenge in this writ petition.
W.P.No.3224/2024
5. This petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the communication dated 15.11.2023 (Annexure P-1), whereby the opinion of UPSC was forwarded to the petitioner for his comments. He has also Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 4 challenged the communication dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure P-2), whereby the copy of enquiry report is forwarded to the petitioner.
6. Before adverting to the merits of this case, it is profitable to mention here that learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection to the challenge made by the petitioner to communication dated 15.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that since the UPSC is not impleaded as party in the petition, the aforesaid challenge is liable to be rejected. To this, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would confine his challenge in this petition to the copy of enquiry report and if he succeeds, the advice of UPSC would be inconsequential. Thus, the instant writ petition is being decided only with regard to the challenge made to the enquiry report.
7. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 07.03.2019. The said order was sent to be served upon the petitioner through DIG, Group Center, CRPF, Panihar District Gwalior. The order was though delivered to the petitioner, however, it is alleged that he refused to give acknowledgment of the same. Consequently, a Committee consisting of four members was constituted to ensure the service of copy of suspension order on the petitioner against his acknowledgment. It is alleged that the Committee went to serve the copy of suspension order to the petitioner at his residence on 08.03.2019. The petitioner asked them to Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 5 come to the premises of Gazetted Officer Mess. After receiving the order in the presence of the members of the Committee, the petitioner again refused to give acknowledgment. The order of suspension was accordingly affixed on petitioner's residence to which also, it is alleged that the petitioner caused resistance and misbehaved with the members of the Committee.
8. Pursuant to the suspension order dated 07.03.2019, the Headquarter of the petitioner was fixed at Group Center, CRPF, Bhopal. However, the petitioner though left from Gwalior on 11.03.2019 but did not report at GC, Bhopal. It is alleged that his mobile was switched off and he did not report to GC Bhopal, despite specific direction. It is further alleged that the petitioner departed from Gwalior on 14.03.2019 along with his family but did not report at GC Bhopal. He was arrested by Ghatigaon police party along with his vehicle on the ground that the petitioner was running away without paying money, threatening and abusing the salesman who asked for money for fuel filled in his vehicle from Bhadouria Petrol Pump on 18.03.2019 at about 2:30 hours. On medical examination, it was found that the petitioner was under influence of alcohal. It is further alleged that the petitioner of his own reported at GC Bhopal on 11.06.2019 and requested for permission to join his duty. Thus, the petitioner was found to have been absent for a period of 94 days Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 6 from 10.03.2019 to 11.06.2019.
9. A charge-sheet dated 28.05.2020 (Annexure P-17) was served to the petitioner, wherein two charges were leveled against him. The first charge was that after having received the order of suspension issued by competent Authority, he refused to furnish the acknowledgment of receipt of the order and misbehaved with other officials and obstructed them in execution of lawful order of the competent Authority. The second charge was that he failed to comply with the lawful order of suspension and directions of competent Authority and remained absent without any intimation and permission of competent Authority to join at Headquarter and did not report at his Headquarter of suspension w.e.f 10.03.2019 to 11.06.2019. The petitioner was thus charged of having failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of government servant.
10. After conducting the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the report on 29.06.2022, which has been communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 12.02.2022 (Annexure P-2). The enquiry is stated to be pending at this stage because of the interim order passed in this writ petition.
Analysis of facts & Law
11. It is the case of the petitioner that in January, 2016, he felt Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 7 uneasy and changes in his behaviour were observed. He visited Doctors at VIMHANS Hospital at New Delhi and remained admitted their from 26.01.2016 to 05.02.2016. The Doctors diagnosed him with Bipolar Disorder. The petitioner further submits that in January, 2019 when he was posted at Group Center, CRPF, Panihar District Gwalior, he again felt same symptoms as he felt in the year 2016. He was examined by the Doctors at Group Center, Gwalior on 22.01.2019 and was referred for further examination to Global Multispeciality Hospital Gwalior. The Doctors at Global Multispeciality Hospital advised him 14 days rest.
12. The petitioner has further submitted that Mr. Rajnish Ahlawat, Commandant was personally biased against him and in order to implicate him falsely, ignoring his mental illness, a false and concocted criminal case was lodged against him at the instance of Mr. Ahlawat in respect of the incident occurred at the midnight of 19th-20th, February 2019. The police at Police Station Panihar, acting under the influenced of Rajnish Ahlawat, registered false case against him for the offences punishable under Section 323, 294, 427 and 452 of IPC. Mr. Rajnish Ahlawat also made a complaint against the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid incident to CRPF Headquarters at New Delhi and recommended for departmental action against him. The petitioner thus alleged that because of the aforesaid incident and the concocted complaint made by Mr. Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 8 Ahlawat, he was placed under suspension.
13. The submission of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner since is suffering from mental illness, is entitled to protection under Section 20 of Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. He further submits that he has specifically raised this issue before Enquiry Officer and also the Disciplinary Authority, however, nobody has considered this aspect and ignoring his mental illness, enquiry report has been submitted by the Enquiry Officer, wherein he has held the charges proved against him. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that UPSC also failed to take into account the factum of his mental illness and has accorded its approval to the action proposed against the petitioner.
14. The learned Senior counsel placed heavy reliance on Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & another Vs. Union of India & others, reported in (2023) 2 SCC 209. Referring to various paragraphs of this judgment, learned Senior counsel submits that owing to his mental illness, it is unreasonable to expect the petitioner to lead evidence and defend himself in enquiry.
15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the writ petition. It is submitted by him that the petitioner has failed to submit any valid medical document/certificate regarding his Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 9 medical illness/disability. Referring to the return filed by the respondents, he submits that the petitioner submitted one prescription slip dated 24.02.2019 of his treatment at GC, CRPF, Greater Noida (U.P.), wherein Doctor has mentioned that the petitioner reported with problems of insomnia, loss of appetite and restlessness. He was referred to AIIMS, Delhi. It is also submitted that one OPD slip of AIIMS, New Delhi was also submitted by the petitioner claiming to have suffered from psychiatric illness but the Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, AIIMS, New Delhi after examining him, opined that "No active psychiatric intervention" required at present and also no past history of psychiatric illness was found. The opinion of AIIMS, New Delhi has been brought on record as Annexure -R/5.
16. The learned counsel for respondents further submitted that the petitioner's allegation that the authorities have not taken into account his mental illness is incorrect inasmuch as the enquiry officer have duly taken into account the petitioner's defense regarding his mental illness. The Disciplinary Authority has yet to apply its mind and to take a final decision. He also submits that UPSC has also considered this aspect in its opinion. The learned counsel for the respondents thus submitted that the ploy of mental illness is being used by petitioner to mislead the department and this Court.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 10
17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
18. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Ravinder Kumar (supra), I shall, therefore, first deal with the said judgment. In the case of Ravinder Kumar, the Apex Court dealt with a case where there was a conclusive medical opinion available on record with regard to mental illness of the incumbent as is evident from observations made by Apex Court in para 135 as under :
"135. Having regard to the complex nature of mental health disorders, any residual control that persons with mental disabilities have over their conduct merely diminishes the extent to which the disability contributed to the conduct, it does not eliminate it as a factor. The appellant has been undergoing treatment for mental health disorders for a long time, since 2009. He has been diagnosed with 40 to 70 percent of permanent disability by a government hospital. While all CRPF personnel may be subject to disciplinary proceedings on charges of misconduct, the appellant is more vulnerable to engage in behavior that can be classified as misconduct because of his mental disability. He is at a disproportionate disadvantage of being subjected to such proceedings in comparison to his able- bodied counterparts. The concept of indirect discrimination has been recognized by this Court in Ltd. Col. Nitisha and Ors. v. Union of India112, which is closely tied with the conception of substantive equality that pervades the international and Indian disability-rights regime. Thus, the disciplinary proceeding against the appellant is discriminatory and must be set aside."
19. Meaning thereby, the fact that the incumbent is suffering mental illness was not in dispute. In the facts obtaining on record of that case, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 11 Apex Court interpreted various provisions of Right of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, (in short 'Act') particularly Section 20 of the Act.
20. Further, in para 125.4 of the judgment the Apex Court discussed about two strands of arguments. Para 125.4 is reproduced herein for ready reference :
"125.4. An issue that remains contentious is the examination of misconduct charges against persons with mental health disorders. There are two strands of argument. One argument is that mental disability often manifests as atypical behaviour that may fall within the ambit of misconduct. If such conduct is causally connected to the disability, then dismissal on grounds of misconduct is discrimination based on disability. This argument has been accepted by a few courts in the US. In the minority opinion in Stewart (supra), it was observed that making a distinction between the disability and the disability-related conduct is akin to making a distinction between a protected ground and conduct that is intertwined with the protected ground. On the other hand, it is argued that while mental health disorders may diminish the control a person has over their actions, it does not necessitate that the persons have completely lost their ability to comply with acceptable standards of workplace conduct. In the US, most courts have held that misconduct is not protected under ADA. In Stewart (supra), the majority opinion of the Canadian Supreme Court held that the employee with substance dependency retained some control to comply with the policy of making prior disclosure of dependency. Thus, non-compliance with standards of workplace conduct can rightfully lead to dismissals and would not constitute discrimination. South Africa adopts a middle ground in this debate. In Legal Aid South Africa (supra), the court observes that a two-pronged enquiry is required. It must first be considered based on the evidence whether the mental health disorder is so incapacitating that the person is not able to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct or is unable to conduct themselves in accordance with the required standard. Alternatively, if the evidence suggests that the person can appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct and act Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 12 accordingly, then their culpability stands diminished because of the mental health disorder, and sanctions should be imposed accordingly."
21. Further, the Apex Court dealt with considerations need to be made in disciplinary matters vis-a-vis provision of Act are discussed in para 131, 132, which reads as under :
"131. Similar considerations would govern our understanding of discrimination under the RPwD Act. A person with a disability is not required to prove that discrimination occurred solely on the basis that they had a disability. Disability needs to be one of the factors that led to the discriminatory act. Thus, in the present case, the appellant is only required to prove that disability was one of the factors that led to the institution of disciplinary proceedings against him on the charge of misconduct. A related enquiry then is to examine whether the conduct of the employee with a mental disability must be solely a consequence of their disability or it is sufficient to show that the disability was one of the factors for the conduct.
132. An interpretation that the conduct should solely be a result of an employee's mental disability would place many persons with mental disabilities outside the scope of human rights protection. It is possible that the appellant was able to exercise some agency over his actions. But the appellant was still a person who was experiencing disabling effects of his condition. Thus in any event his agency was diminished. The over- emphasis on the choice or agency of a person with a mental health disorder furthers the stigma against them. As Justice Gascon's minority opinion in Stewart (supra) states, it furthers the stereotype that persons with mental health conditions are "the authors of their own misfortune."
22. Now, Section 20 of the Act provides as under:
"20. Non-discrimination in employment -
(1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment:Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 13
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 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."
23. Thus, Section 20 confers protection to an employee suffering 'disability'. The term disability has been defined under Section 2(i) of the Act to mean mental retardation and mental illness among others. Section 2(q) defines 'mental illness' as a mental disorder other than mental retardation. Further, Section 2(i) defines 'mental retardation' as a condition of incomplete development of a person which is especially characterized by sub-normal intelligence. On the other hand, mental illness is classified as a specified disability under the Act. The Schedule to the Act provides an Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 14 expansive and clearer definition of 'mental illness'.
24. Further, Section 2(s) defines the words "persons with disability"
as person with a long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in the society equally with others. Section 2(c) defines barrier to mean any factor including communicational, cultural, economic which hamper the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in society.
25. Thus, considering various provisions of the Act and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar (supra), it is clear that for getting protection under Section 20 of the Act, there has to be a conclusive finding that the petitioner is suffering disability. In the case of Ravinder Kumar, as observed in para 135 by Apex Court, there was a conclusive finding that the appellant was diagnosed with permanent disability to the extent of 40% to 70% by the Government Hospital and he had been undergoing treatment for mental disorders for a long time.
26. After having discussed the relevant provision of the Act and the Apex Court observation made in Ravinder Kumar (Supra) case, the documents placed on record by petitioner relating to his mental illness needs to be considered. The first document filed as Annexure P-3 appears to be a prescription dated 05.02.2016, wherein the petitioner is diagnosed Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 15 with Bipolar Affective Disorder. However, this document is not on a letter head of any doctor/hospital and has not even signed by anyone. The document filed as Annexure P-4 is dated 21.01.2019, wherein against the petitioner's name certain medicines are prescribed but it does not certify about any illness. The document filed at page 121 has diagnosed petitioner with Broncitis. Similar is the case with documents filed at page No.122, 123, 124 & 125 where BPAD is not diagnosed. The documents filed as Annexure P-9 to P-11 also does not certify petitioner's BPAD illness and have been considered by enquiry officer. Annexure P-14 is again a prescription of private doctor and does not mention about BPAD. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Raj Kumar Singh of Bulandshahar also cannot be accepted as it has been obtained on 19.11.2021 for treatment given about 2 1/2 years back. Rest of the documents relates to referring the petitioner to AIIMS, New Delhi by GC, Gwalior which have been considered and discussed by enquiry officer.
27. On the other hand, in the case in hand, it has come on record that the Department of Psychiatry, AIIMS, New Delhi, has not found active Psychiatric issue with the petitioner. The enquiry officer has discussed the entire material that has come on record during enquiry in this regard at internal page 70 of the enquiry report (of W.P.No.3224/2024) and has found that the petitioner is not suffering any mental illness. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 16 UPSC has also discussed this aspect in its opinion in para 4.11. The report of enquiry officer and the opinion of UPSC has been forwarded to the petitioner for his response and the matter is pending at this stage. Thus, there is no final decision taken yet by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner still has an opportunity to demonstrate before the Disciplinary Authority about his mental illness. However, since there is no conclusive medical opinion available on record stating that the petitioner is suffering mental illness, the case of Ravinder Kumar (supra) is distinguishable.
28. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Bhavya Nain Vs. High Court of Delhi, reported in (2020) 2 SCT 590. However, facts of this case are entirely different, wherein the Division Bench has considered as to whether the disability of Bipolar Affective Disorder is permanent disease or not. Thus, the issue being different, the aforesaid judgment of Delhi High Court is of no help to the petitioner.
29. The scope of interference by High Court in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India is well defined. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India & another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in (2006) SCC 28 held as under :
"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 17 Director and another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another, AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001 (10) SCC 639, State of U.P. Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another, AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.
14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.
15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet."
30. In view of the discussion made above, the petitioner has failed to establish in the enquiry that he is suffering mental illness and is entitled to get protection under Section 20 of the Act. The contention of the petitioner that enquiry officer has not considered his defense of mental illness is also found to be incorrect in view of specific finding recorded in this regard in the enquiry report. No interference thus can be made in the instant writ petition.
31. Since, the Disciplinary Authority has yet to apply its mind and Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM 18 take a final decision, the petition is, therefore, disposed of with the observation that the Disciplinary Authority while finalizing the matter shall consider the defense of the petitioner regarding his mental illness with due regard to various medical prescriptions/reports. If needed, the petitioner be got examined by the medical board/experts for determination of his mental illness in which the petitioner shall extend full cooperation.
32. Since, the petitioner has challenged enquiry report only in these petitions and final decision is yet to be taken by Disciplinary Authority, it is clarified that this Court has considered the facts of the case only for purposes of deciding this issue and any observations made herein would not prejudicially effect the right of the petitioner/respondents in future proceedings.
33. The petitions are disposed off with the aforesaid observations.
(ASHISH SHROTI) JUDGE bj/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 03/24/2025 05:36:21 PM