Gauhati High Court
Debajit Phukan vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 10 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010117932016
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5416/2016
DEBAJIT PHUKAN
S/O. LEKHAN PHUKAN, R/O. VILL. SOLAL GAON, P.O. PANI GAON, P.S.
NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME,
NEW DELHI.
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE.
3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
SOUTHERN SECTOR
CRPF
ROAD NO. 10-C
NEAR NEW MLA/MP COLONY GAYATRI HILLS
JUBILEE HILLS
HYDERABAD
TELENGANA STATE
PIN. 700033.
4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
GROUP CENTRE
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCECRPF YELAHANKA
BANGALORE
KARNATAKA.
5:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERALMEDICAL
MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT COMPOSITE HOSPITAL
CRPF
Page No.# 2/9
AVADI
CHENNAI-600065
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R SIKDAR, MR. M H TALUKDAR,MS. S PARVEEN
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT. S.G.I., MR. B DEKA(C.G.C)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 10.11.2025 Heard Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Deka, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding has presented a challenge to an order dated 08.08.2015, by which his services were terminated invoking the provisions of Rule 6 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The petitioner has also assailed an order dated January 2016, passed by the Inspector General, Southern Sector, CRPF, rejecting the appeal preferred by petitioner, herein, against the order of his termination dated 08.08.2015.
3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the present writ petition is noticed as under;
The petitioner in pursuance to a recruitment process was selected for appointment as Constable(General Duty) in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred as CRPF in short). The petitioner on his such selection was appointed as a constable vide order dated 16.11.2013. The petitioner was then deputed to undergo Basic training at the Regional Training Centre, Latur, on 17.05.2014. The petitioner after reporting at the Basic Training Center, remained absent from the training w.e.f.
Page No.# 3/9 19.05.2014 and had reported back on 03.09.2014. However, the petitioner was allowed to continue with his training but he again had to remain absent on being sick w.e.f. 29.09.2014 till 06.10.2014. The petitioner during the said period of time was diagnosed to be suffering from "Lumbar disc disease with nerve compression". The petitioner was admitted in the hospital by the authorities of the Training Center and he remained in the hospital w.e.f. 07.10.2014 to 13.10.2014.
On returning from his medical leave, the petitioner was found to be sitting alone not talking to anybody and was seen to be under stress. Due to the unusual behavior demonstrated by the petitioner, herein, the petitioner was referred to the psychiatric ward of the GMCH, Latur (Maharastra) on 02.12.2014. The petitioner on being evaluated was found to have persistent feeling of helplessness, worthlessness, decreased sleep and appetite and was found to be demonstrating withdrawal behavior for last 2(two) years. He was also found to have lost of interest in activities, suicidal attempts in the past and was accordingly diagnosed to be suffering from "Major Depressive Disorder" and accordingly was put under medication.
The petitioner's condition not found to be improving, he was referred to the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Avadi, for further management. The specialist examining the petitioner at the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Avadi, had again diagnosed the petitioner to be suffering from "Major Depressive Disorder".
Accordingly on the basis of the evaluation of the petitioner by the expert at the said hospital the petitioner came to be declared to be unfit for training and service as a combatant in armed forces and he was categorized to belong to Shape-5 (P) and was recommended for invalidation from service.
Page No.# 4/9 Accordingly, the competent authority on examining the opinion furnished in the matter by the Specialist from the said hospital, proceeded vide the order dated 08.08.2015, to terminate the service of the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Rule 6 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965.
The petitioner being aggrieved by his termination, by referring to the reports which he had subsequently obtained from Private Institutions as well as Government Institutions, preferred an appeal in the matter before the concerned authority.
The Appellate Authority thereafter on consideration of the appeal vide order dated January, 2016, proceeded to reject the said appeal by holding the same to be devoid of any merit.
Accordingly, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings.
4. Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, after reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has referred to an opinion given in respect of the ailments suffered, by the Specialist of National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), wherein, it was opined that the petitioner was fit to resume his duties.
He furthers refers to a opinion given in respect of the petitioner, by the Doctors of Guwahati Medical College & Hospital (GMCH) on 21.12.2015, which reflects that the petitioner was not suffering from any psychiatric illness.
Basing on the said opinion as well as by contending the petitioner who may have suffered from depressive disorder at the relevant point of time, had fully recovered, therefrom, and eligible to continue in his services. Mr. Sikdar, submits that the impugned orders would mandate an interference from this Court, with a further direction for reinstatement of the petitioner in his services with all consequential benefits.
Page No.# 5/9
5. Mr. Sikdar, has also made an alternative argument referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Dhariwal and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., Judgment dated 17.12.2021, passed in Civil Appeal No.6924/2021, and has contended that, in the event, even if it is considered by this Court that the petitioner was suffering from mental ailments, the respondents are required to be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for an alternative appointment.
6. Mr. B. Deka, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner while undergoing his training, for the symptoms demonstrated by him, he on being sent for medical examination having been diagnosed to suffer from "Moderate Depressive Disorder", and the medicines as given to him having not shown a response, the petitioner came to be referred to the Composite Hospital, CRPF, at Avadi. He submits that the Specialist examining the petitioner at the said Composite Hospital, having opined that the petitioner was suffering from "Moderate Depressive Disorder" and he was unfit for continuation in the Force. The opinion having been brought on record, the Competent Authority on appreciating the same proceeded vide order dated 08.08.2015, to terminate the engagement of the petitioner, herein, invoking the provisions of Rule 6 of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, read with Rule 16(a) of the CRPF Rules, 1955. He submits that the subsequent certificate as produced by the petitioner and brought on record in the writ petition, on perusal does not reveal that the petitioner at the relevant point of time, when he was terminated from his service, was infact not suffering from a depressive disorder. He submits that the petitioner having been recruited for the duties of a combatant, a person suffering from depressive disorder cannot be entrusted with Arms And Page No.# 6/9 Ammunitions which would be to the peril to the members of the force as well as the public at large.
Accordingly, he submits that the Respondent Authorities had not committed any error in passing the order dated 08.08.2015, as well as the order dated January, 2016, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
8. The petitioner while undergoing his Basic training came to be referred to the Composite Hospital, CRPF, at Avadi. Therein, the Specialist examining the petitioner, had diagnosed the petitioner to be suffering from "Moderate Depressive Disorder".
The Specialist thereafter basing on the evaluation of the mental condition of the petitioner, had submitted a detailed report on 19.03.2015, and therein, it was highlighted that the petitioner was diagnosed to be suffering from "Moderate Depressive Disorder", a major mental illness, characterized by remission and relapses with medication, aggravated by stress factor in service as well as in personal life which mandates continuous medication with emotional and social support. Accordingly, the petitioner was declared unfit for training and service as a combatant in the Armed Forces. His health condition was categorized as Shape-5 (P) and recommended for invalidation from service.
9. Basing on the said opinion rendered in the matter by the Specialist of the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Avadi, the petitioner, herein, after following the due process, was vide order dated 08.08.2015, issued by the Competent Authority, terminated from his service invoking the provisions of Rule 6 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, and the petitioner was also held to be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay, plus allowances due to him Page No.# 7/9 immediately before the date of termination of his services.
10. The petitioner in the present proceeding in support of his contentions and also to dispute the conclusions arrived at by the Specialist at the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Avadi, has referred to a opinion dated 30.04.2015 rendered in his matter by the experts of National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences.
A perusal of the opinion rendered by the said Doctors of NIMHANS reveals that it was opined that the petitioner was fit to resume his services, however it was further stipulated therein that the petitioner needed regular follow ups. The diagnosis as set out in the said certificate dated 30.04.2015, is that the petitioner was suffering from complicated Grief Disorder. The petitioner, thereafter, had referred to a certificate issued by the Doctors of Guwahati Medical College & Hospital. The said certificate is dated 21.12.2015, and it reveals that the current mental state of the petitioner on examination does not reveal any psychiatric illness.
11. This Court has perused the said certificates dated 30.04.2015 and 21.12.2015. On a consideration of the said certificates, this Court finds that the certificate dated 30.04.2015 issued by the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences, having also diagnosed the petitioner to be suffering from complicated Grief Disorder, the opinion rendered in the matter by the Specialist of the Composite Hospital, CRPF, Avadi, on 19.03.2015, would not mandate an interference, inasmuch as, it is established that the petitioner was suffering from mental ailments which would not have mandated his continuation in the Force.
12. In the above factual backdrop, this Court would now notice the aims and objectives of the CRPF. The Force is India's largest para-military force. It performs wide range of duties, for example law enforcement, Page No.# 8/9 counter insurgency operations, VIP security etc. CRPF personnel are deployed all over the country for carrying multi dimensional duties. CRPF is known for its performance, discipline and commitment in maintaining peace and security of the nation. Accordingly, the members of the Force are also expected to match up to the requirements of the Force.
13. In view of the above discussion the question that would now arise is whether respondents were justified in issuing the impugned orders or not and if so under what circumstances.
As noticed hereinabove, the medical records of the petitioner, brought on record, having disclosed that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was suffering from a mental ailment and the same being of a nature which would not have permitted his continuation in his service as a combatant in the Armed Forces, this Court would not question the said conclusion as arrived at in the matter by the experts. This Court on appreciating the fact that the petitioner, herein, would be required to discharge his duties by use of arms and ammunition, given the nature of the ailment suffered by the petitioner, which again has phases of remission and relapses, does not find itself in a position to hold the petitioner to be fit to discharge his duties in the force in the manner called for. Accordingly, this Court would not be in a position to direct for the reinstatement of the petitioner in his service.
14. In view of the discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the termination of the petitioner vide the order dated 08.08.2015, would not mandate any interference. Such a conclusion has been drawn by this Court considering the nature of the ailments suffered by the petitioner, as well as the manner in which a member of the force is required to discharge his duties in the Force.
15. Having drawn the above conclusion, this Court would now Page No.# 9/9 examine the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court finds that the said decision is based on an interpretation of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act, 2016. The said decision in the considered view of this Court would not advance the case of the petitioner, herein, inasmuch as, the petitioner, herein, was terminated from his services during the stage of his training. The petitioner was not an enrolled member of the Force at the time when he was terminated from his services.
Accordingly, in view of the facts involved in the present proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents cannot be directed to consider an alternative appointment for the petitioner, herein, inasmuch as, the petitioner had at the time of his termination from services not been enrolled as a member of the Force. Further he had not even completed his training for the said purpose.
16. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant