Chief Commissioner For Persons With Disabilities Has No Power To Adjudicate Service Matters, Can't Stay Transfers: Delhi High Court

The Court stated that the CCPD's mandate under the RPWD Act is “…is investigatory and recommendatory in nature, aimed at ensuring compliance with the rights and safeguards established under the RPWD Act.”

Noting this, the Court further observed that the action of CCPD in staying the transfer order of an employee was beyond its jurisdiction. It remarked that “This overreach is not supported by the provisions of the RPWD Act, which do not envisage the CCPD as an adjudicatory body capable of deciding service-related disputes or issuing enforceable orders in such matters.”

A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula was considering the petitioner's challenge to the interim order passed by the CCPD (respondent no.1), who stayed the transfer of respondent no.3 until the completion of proceedings before it.

Respondent No. 3, a person with disabilities, was appointed as an Assistant Director at the petitioner-Institute in 2007. On June 19, 2024, Respondent No. 3 was ordered to transfer from NPTI Faridabad to NPTI Durgapur. A relieving letter was issued on July 2, followed by a memorandum on July 9, instructing him to join NPTI Durgapur immediately.

On July 15, respondent No. 3 emailed the Institute stating that he was ill and the doctor recommended bed rest. He said that he would report to NPTI Durgapur once he had recovered. A week later, he filed a complaint with the CCPD against the Institute and alleged that his frequent transfers reflected malafide intent and amounted to harassment of a person with disabilities.

After hearing the parties, the CCPD reserved the matter till August on 30 July. Two days later, in an interim order, it directed the Institute to keep the transfer order in abeyance until the matter was pending before it.

The petitioner-Institute contended that the CCPD has no authority to adjudicate the respondent's transfer grievance and that CCPD acted beyond its jurisdiction by passing the impugned order. It contended that the CCPD is not a tribunal or adjudicatory forum empowered to resolve employment-related disputes. On the other hand, respondent no. 3 contended that CCPD acted within its jurisdiction under Section 75 (functions of CCPD) of the RPWD Act.

The Court referred to Section 75 of the RPWD Act, which empowers the CCPD to inquire into complaints regarding deprivation rights of disabled persons and take up such matters with the appropriate authorities for corrective action. It noted that Section 75 RPWD Act does not empower CCPD to pass a binding or adjudicatory orders, similar to a court do law. It observed that the role of CCPD under the Act is investigatory and recommendatory in nature.

The Court stated that even though CCPD has powers similar to those of civil court under Section 77 of RPWD Act, such as summoning witnesses and receiving evidence on affidavits, these powers are merely for procedural purposes and are limited to conducting inquiries and investigations.

It remarked that such powers of CCPD does not extend to “…adjudicating disputes between an employer and an employee or issuing binding directions regarding service matters, such as the transfer orders which are in question in the present writ petition.”

It referred to the case of Shipping Corporation of India vs. Haripada Shaileshwar Chaterjee (Writ Petition No. 10307/2015), where the Bombay High Court observed that the authority of the CCPD does not extend to passing orders in the form of mandatory directions that assume the role of an adjudicator. The Court had held that the CCPD cannot entertain service-related disputes, which are outside the scope of the CCPD's jurisdiction under the RPWD Act.

In the present case, the Court found that the CCPD exceeded its authority by staying the transfer order of respondent no. 3, as this action was outside its jurisdiction under the RPWD Act.

“The Chief Commissioner does not possess the authority to pass interim orders that effectively halts administrative actions such as transfers, pending further inquiry. Consequently, the interim order in question could not have been validly issued under the scheme of the RPWD Act, as it exceeds the scope of the Chief Commissioner's investigatory and recommendatory powers” it said.

The Court thus set aside the operative portion of the CCPD's order, to the extent of staying the transfer of the petitioner.

Case title: National Power Training Institute vs. Office Of Chief Commissioner For Persons With Disability & Ors. (W.P.(C) 11104/2024 & Cm Appl. 45890/2024)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 979