Initiation Of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Persons With Mental Disabilities Is A Facet Of Indirect Discrimination : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday observed that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against persons with mental disabilities is a facet of indirect discrimination. The Apex Court was adjudicating upon a case wherein disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against an officer of the Central Reserve Police Force who had been diagnosed with 40 to 70 percent mental disability.

A Bench comprising Justices D.Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath observed while setting aside the disciplinary proceedings, 

"A person with a disability is entitled to protection under the RPwD Act as long as the disability was one of the factors for the discriminatory act"

The mental disability of a person need not be the sole cause of the misconduct that led to the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. Any residual control that persons with mental disabilities have over their conduct merely diminishes the extent to which the disability contributed to the conduct. The mental disability impairs the ability of persons to comply with workplace standards in comparison to their able-bodied counterparts. Such persons suffer a disproportionate disadvantage due to the impairment and are more likely to be subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against persons with mental disabilities is a facet of indirect discrimination."

Pertinently, the Bench further observed that Section 47 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) is not the sole source of the right of equality and non-discrimination held by persons with disability but that the principle of non-discrimination is fundamental to the entire legislation. 

"Section 47 of the PwD Act is not the sole source of the right of equality and non-discrimination held by persons with disability. The principle of non-discrimination guides the entire statute...an interpretation that furthers international law or gives effect to international law must be preferred. Therefore, even though the PwD Act does not have an express provision laying down the principle of equality vis-à-vis disabled persons, it will have to be read into the statute", it was opined further. 

It was further underscored that a person with a disability is entitled to protection under the RPwD Act as long as the disability was one of the factors for the discriminatory act. The Court further ruled that the appellant is also entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act in the event that he is found unsuitable for his current employment duty.

"While re-assigning the appellant to an alternate post, should it become necessary, his pay, emoluments and conditions of service must be protected. The authorities will be at liberty to ensure that the assignment to an alternate post does not involve the use of or control over fire-arms or equipment which may pose a danger to the appellant or others in or around the work-place", the Bench directed further. 

Background

In the instant case, a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court had allowed an appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant. The Single Judge had directed the State to consider the case of the petitioner in view of Section 47 of the Act. Allowing the appeal against the order of the Single Judge, the Division Bench had set aside the enquiry report and restored the proceedings to the stage of evidence.

The appellant had joined the Central Reserve Police Force in November 2001. While serving in Ajmer, on April 18, 2010, the Deputy Inspector General of Police had lodged a complaint against him in the Alwar Gate police station alleging that the appellant had stated that he was obsessed with either killing or being killed and made a threat that he could shoot.

Subsequently, an enquiry had been initiated against him and six charges were framed against him which were that he remained absent from morning marker, used unparliamentary language, appeared in television channels and other print media without the prior approval of the Department, did not give parade report, tried to intentionally cause an accident, and assaulted a Deputy Commandant. An enquiry report was submitted on October 3, 2013. Pursuant to the enquiry report, notice was issued to the appellant on 7 August 2015. Thereafter two more enquires had been initiated against the appellant on various other charges.

Furthermore, the appellant began suffering from facing obsessive-compulsive disorder and secondary major depression in 2009. He was subsequently referred to Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Delhi where he was categorized as permanently disabled, having 40 to 70 per cent disability. The Composite Hospital by a report dated 18 July 2016, declared the appellant unfit for duty and placed him under the S5(P) category due to his partial and limited response to all modalities of treatment since 2009.

Supreme Court sets aside disciplinary proceedings

Setting aside the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, the Supreme Court observed :

"The disciplinary proceedings against the appellant relating to the first enquiry are set aside. The appellant is also entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act in the event he is found unsuitable for his current employment duty. While re-assigning the appellant to an alternate post, should it become necessary, his pay, emoluments and conditions of service must be protected. The authorities will be at liberty to ensure that the assignment to an alternate post does not involve the use of or control over fire -arms or equipment  which may pose a danger to the appellant or others in or around the work-place".

Case Title: Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr v. Union of India 

Citation : LL 2021 SC 751

Appearances: Advocate Rajiv Raheja for the appellant; Additional Solicitor General Madhavi Divan for the respondents

Click Here To Read/Download the judgment