UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR DHARIWAL AND ANR
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Union Of India And 3 Ors
Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal And Anr
Click here to view full judgement.
A.S. Bopanna, J. -
(1.) The appellants, Union of India and other officers, who were the respondents in WP(C) 4598/2015, are before this Court assailing the order dated 19.8.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge, having accepted the contention put forth by the petitioner, has taken into consideration the provisions contained in Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995 (for short, Act of 1995) and has directed the respondents to take a decision in terms of the provisions under Section 47 of the Act of 1995. The effect of the decision of the learned Single Judge is to nullify the effect of enquiry and to grant benefit in that regard. The appellants, therefore, being aggrieved by the order are before this Court in this appeal.
(2.) Heard Mr. SC Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. PK Tiwari, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. AR Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the appeal papers.
(3.) The appellants herein had initiated the proceedings by issuing charge-sheet dated 8.7.2010 against the respondent No.1 herein alleging misconduct and, in that regard, had proceeded to enquire into the matter. Ultimately, on submission of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority had issued the notice dated 7.8.2015 enclosing the report. It is, at this stage, the respondent herein had approached this Court assailing the action of the appellants herein contending that the charges as levelled against the respondent No.1 herein cannot constitute misconduct. In that regard, it was contended that the respondent No.1 was suffering from a mental disorder known as "Obsessive & Compulsive Disorder" (OCD) in medical terms. In that light, it was contended that if the charges as levelled against the petitioner are taken note of, the same, even if had occurred, was due to such mental condition of the respondent No.1 and therefore, it was contended that the same not being a misconduct, initiation of the enquiry and subsequent action was not justified. The learned Single Judge, while accepting the said contention, was of the opinion that if Section 47 of the Act of 1995 is kept in mind, in view of such disability, a decision in that regard was required to be taken by the appellants herein.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.