Mr. Manoj V George, Ms. Shilpa Liza George, Ms. Brinda Bhattiprolu, Advs v. UNION OF INDIA ANR

Judgment

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vide which the petitioner seeks: a) “Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2020 with respect of the “Stoppage of next increment for a period of five years with cumulative effect” and in lieu of that restore the next increment of the Petitioner; and with respect of considering the period spent the date of reinstatement/reporting as PERIOD NOT SPENT ON DUTY and in lieu of that consider the aforesaid period as PERIOD SPENT ON DUTY; and from 01.05.2019 (afternoon) b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other direction to the Respondents to provide the full pay and benefits that were denied to Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8626/2022 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.12.2025 19:04:48 the Petitioner during his period of suspension and compulsory retirement; and c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other direction to the Respondents to make available all the medical records of the Medical Board with respect to the Petitioner; and d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondent to implement the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 in the Force; and e) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to do so in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.”

2. The facts leading to the present petition are that on 29.07.2018, the petitioner, while on attachment with the 122 Battalion Signal Platoon (5 Signal Battalion CRPF) was sent for the Annual Range Classification Firing at the Ferozpur-Jhirka Firing Range for communication duties. Respondent No.2 alleged absence of the petitioner from the designated duty area and carriage of radio equipment without permission. It was also alleged that the petitioner had spent time at the Outpost of 27 Battalion and that, after returning to the Butt Range, he was behaving with indiscipline and insubordination with the Range Officer. The petitioner was also accused of failing to carry two sets of 1/5 W radio sets to the firing range as a result of which he was punished by being made to stand under the sun before the Office for a period of almost four hours.

3. The petitioner, consequent on the above punishment, submitted a written complaint dated 30.07.2018 and in response to this complaint, the Commandant 122 Battalion issued a warning letter dated

30.07.2018 stating that the petitioner had refused to obey the orders of the Head of Office and had failed to follow CRPF Rules and Guidelines. Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8626/2022 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.12.2025 19:04:48 Following this incident, a behaviour report also came to be recorded. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to report to the Commandant 05 Signal Battalion, CRPF, Chandigarh.

4. Thereafter, on 20.10.2018, while the petitioner was on duty at Chandigarh, an incident occurred between the petitioner and a superior officer, whereby it was alleged that the petitioner had disobeyed the orders of HC/GD Deedar Singh who lodged a written complaint, upon perusal of which the Insp/RO (Subedar Major) Nand Ram called the petitioner. A conversation ensued during which it is alleged that a scuffle took place where (Subedar Major) Nand Ram raised his hand to attack the petitioner and the petitioner allegedly pushed the Subedar Major in self-defence resulting in the Subedar Major falling down and injuring the side of his right eye, pursuant to which a suspension order dated 20.10.2018 was issued against the petitioner.

5. Thereafter, on 25.10.2018, a Memorandum of Charge was issued to the petitioner initiating disciplinary proceedings, which was received by the petitioner on 26.10.2018. Four charges were framed against the petitioner, the charges being:

I. The first Article of Charge pertained to the incident dated

20.10.2018 alleging that the petitioner used criminal force against Insp/RO (Subedar Major) Nand Ram after disobeying the orders of HC/GD Deedar Singh, resulting in injury to the superior officer. Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8626/2022 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.12.2025 19:04:48 II. The second Article of Charge alleged refusal to comply with an order issued by Hav./GD Didar Singh to replace the Guard Commander at Gate No. 2 and alleged arrogant conduct. III. The third Article of Charge referred to previous instances of misconduct, including “02 times Severe Censure” and “01 times Censure”. IV. The fourth Article of Charge concerned absence of petitioner from assigned communication duties on 29.07.2018 during deployment with 122 Battalion Signal Platoon.

6. Thereafter the petitioner was granted permission to leave the Headquarters for 10 days starting the afternoon of 27.10.2018, due to domestic problems and bank related loan work. The petitioner underwent medical evaluation at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College, Jaipur on 30.10.2018, where he was diagnosed with behavioural changes i.e., Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder1 .

7. Upon returning, the petitioner sought reimbursement for medical expenses, which was refused. Subsequently, a Medical Board was constituted by the respondent and the petitioner was referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh for further examination. The Medical Board confirmed that his “Behavioural Response” seemed improper and needed specialist psychiatric examination. PGIMER notified the CRPF unit on 21.12.2018 that the medical examination was scheduled for

11.01.2019. The examination at PGIMER medical records indicate his mental illness, a thorough psychiatric assessment revealed that the 1 “OCPD” hereinafter Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8626/2022 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.12.2025 19:04:48 petitioner was suffering from a “Moderate Depressive Episode” and the petitioner was found to have below average intelligence on his intelligence quotient (IQ) assessment . The PGIMER medical board advised that the petitioner should not handle firearms for a minimum period of one year.

8. Thereafter the suspension against the petitioner was revoked vide order dated 18.01.2019 by the Commandant, 5 Signal Battalion with immediate effect.

9. The disciplinary proceedings continued and on 01.05.2019, the disciplinary authority issued the Final Order. By the said order, the petitioner was awarded the penalty of compulsory retirement with 30% reduction in pension and gratuity in accordance with Rule 40(1) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 19722. The petitioner was removed from the Nafri of his battalion with effect from 01.05.2019. The order further directed confiscation of medals and awards under Section 12(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 19493, and recovery or adjustment of any outstanding dues from the amounts payable to the petitioner.

10. The Disciplinary Authority also recorded directions with respect to the treatment of the petitioner’s suspension and absence periods. The suspension period from 20.10.2018 to 06.11.2018 and 13.11.2018 to

17.01.2019, totalling 84 days, was treated “as such”, and the period 2 “CCS Pension Rules” hereinafter 3 “CRPF Act” hereinafter Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8626/2022 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.12.2025 19:04:48 from 07.11.2018 to 12.11.2018, i.e., six days, was regulated as “dies- non”, while being condoned for the purpose of pension calculation under Rule 27 and Rule 28 of the CCS Pension Rules.

11. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2019 , thereby affirming the findings of the Departmental Enquiry and the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

12. The petitioner thereafter invoked Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 by filing a revision petition on 29.09.2019 before the Revisional Authority, namely the Inspector General (Communication & IT). The Revisional Authority passed a Speaking order dated 06.03.2020, whereby the order of compulsory retirement dated 01.05.2019 and the appellate order dated 12.09.2019 were set aside. In substitution, the petitioner was reinstated into service and awarded the penalty of “stoppage of next increment for five years with cumulative effect”. The petitioner was directed to report to 2 Signal Battalion, CRPF for further posting.

13. The Revisional Authority further directed that the period from

01.05.2019 (afternoon) till the date of reinstatement/reporting shall be treated as “period not spent on duty” in terms of Rule 54(5) of the Fundamental Rules4 for all purposes except for computation of pension. The petitioner thereafter contacted the authorities on 25.05.2020, regarding the revisional order who was then told to report at 2 Signal 4 “F.R” hereinafter Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8626/2022 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.12.2025 19:04:48 Battalion, CRPF, Hyderabad, Telangana. The petitioner reported at the unit on 27.05.2020.

14. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted two letters dated 29.05.2020, wherein he referred to matters relating to final payment of Group Insurance Scheme (GIS) and the Risk Fund Passbook (RFPB) and requested that terminal dues be recovered in instalments in view of financial difficulties.

15. Subsequent correspondence records that on 07.07.2020 the petitioner was informed that reinstatement would take effect upon refund of terminal dues. The petitioner deposited the requisite dues on

08.07.2020, and an office order of the same date reinstated the petitioner with effect from 08.07.2020 (forenoon), treating the intervening period from the date of compulsory retirement i.e. 01.05.2019 till one day before the date of reinstatement i.e., 07.07.2020 as “period not spent on duty”.

16. Following this, the petitioner on 16.07.2020 and 04.08.2020 submitted representations seeking that 27.05.2020 be considered the date of reinstatement, which was later on rejected vide communication dated 31.07.2020 and 21.08.2020 maintaining that the reinstatement date was correctly fixed from 08.07.2020.

17. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a Mercy Petition dated

10.12.2020, requesting Respondent No.2 the cumulative punishment be set aside and that the period from 01.05.2019 to Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8626/2022 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.12.2025 19:04:48

27.05.2020, which is the date of his reporting, be considered as “period spent on duty” which was rejected as being devoid of merits under Rule 30 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 19555 on 25.08.2021 whereby the Director General, CRPF, New Delhi, confirmed the punishment as justified and that the non-duty period was held to be correct as under F.R.54.

18. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the Revision Order dated 06.03.2020 imposing cumulative punishment and non -duty status, and the rejection of the Mercy Petition dated 25.08.2021 confirming the same. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner

19. Mr. Manoj V George, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that although allegations of indiscipline and insubordination have been levelled against the petitioner, the present case warrants consideration beyond the disciplinary prism, as the petitioner was suffering from “mental illness” at the relevant time, duly certified by competent medical authorities, thereby rendering the disciplinary action disproportionate, insensitive, and legally unsustainable.

20. It was submitted that the petitioner was diagnosed with OCPD, first at a civil hospital Jaipur and later confirmed by PGIMER, Chandigarh. The learned Counsel contends that the said condition 5 “CRPF Rules” hereinafter Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8626/2022 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.12.2025 19:04:48 squarely falls within the definition of “mental illness” under Section 2(1)(s) 6 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

21. The learned Counsel urges that the petitioner was not a perpetrator of misconduct but rather a victim of mental health vulnerabilities and is therefore entitled to the protection and reasonable accommodation under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 20167.

22. It was submitted that despite medical advice that the petitioner should not be entrusted with duties involving arms and ammunition, the respondents proceeded with disciplinary action culminating compulsory retirement, in contravention of Section 20 of the RPwD Act8, Section 25 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

23. Reliance was placed on Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India9, to contend that disciplining a mentally ill employee constitutes 6 2(s) “mental illness” means a substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognise reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, mental conditions associated with the abuse of alcohol and drugs, but does not include mental retardation which is a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind of a person, specially characterised by subnormality of intelligence; 7 “RPwD Act” hereinafter 8 20. (1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment: 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 9 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1293 W.P.(C) 8626/2022 Signature Not Verified Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.12.2025 19:04:48 indirect discrimination under the RPwD Act and that the employer is duty-bound to provide reasonable accommodation. It is further submitted that Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act prohibits dispensing with the services of an employee acquiring disability during service and mandates adjustment against a suitable or supernumerary post.

24. Further, as regards the first incident dated 29.07.2018 at the Ferozepur-Jhirka Firing Range, the learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner was never absent from duty as alleged, as the firing range fell within the jurisdiction of the adjoining outpost, and no written briefing or standing order mandated the carriage of additional radio sets. It was contended that the petitioner was subjected to humiliation by being made to stand in the sun for over four hours, and when he lodged a complaint before the Commandant, he was coerced into withdrawing the same and subsequently victimised.

25. As regards the incident dated 20.10.2018 at 5 Signal Battalion, Chandigarh, it was urged that the petitioner did not commit any aggressive act, rather, he was subjected to demeaning and abusive language by Subedar Major Nand Ram, and when the officer attempted to physically assault him, the petitioner only pushed him in self- defence, causing inadvertent injury. It was submitted that the incident was erroneously classified as a “More Heinous Offence” and treated as major misconduct.

26. The learned Counsel next submitted that the Revisional Order dated 06.03.2020, while setting aside the penalty of compulsory Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8626/2022 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.12.2025 19:04:48 retirement, substituted it with the punishment of “stoppage of next increment for five years with cumulative effect”, which according to him was impermissible in law and ultra vires the statutory rules governing disciplinary control over CRPF personnel.

27. It was urged that Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which applies to the CRPF, contemplates withholding of increments of pay as a prescribed penalty but does not provide for withholding with cumulative effect unless explicitly authorised. It was argued that a cumulative bar, which permanently depresses future increments and pension, constitutes a major penalty of a more severe character than those enumerated under the Rules.

28. Further reliance was placed on Rule 27(a) and Rule 72 of the CRPF Rules which similarly contemplates only stoppage of increments and does not provide for cumulative effect or for withholding beyond a prescribed period.

29. It was further contended that the petitioner’s repeated requests for copies of his medical records and documents pertaining to treatment were arbitrarily denied, contrary to Section 25 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, thereby infringing his statutory right to access his own medical records. Such denial, as urged, obstructed the petitioner’s defence, violated his dignity and privacy, and infringed his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, thereby rendering the disciplinary proceedings constitutionally infirm. Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8626/2022 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.12.2025 19:04:48

30. The learned Counsel further submitted that the denial of relevant documents also violated the principles set out in MHA OM No. 30/5/61- AVD dated 25.08.1961, which mandates that relevancy must be viewed from the standpoint of the defence, and any document potentially aiding defence must be supplied. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the omission to do so vitiated the enquiry.

31. Reliance was placed on Punjab State Electricity Board v. Raj Kumar Goel10, Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab11, and Rahul Kumar v. Union of India12, to contend that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect constitutes a major penalty and cannot be imposed unless specifically authorised by the Rules.

32. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Revisional Authority effectively imposed two penalties for the same cause of action, namely, (i) stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, and (ii) treating the entire period from 01.05.2019 (afternoon) till reinstatement as “period not spent on duty”, thereby violating the doctrine against civil double jeopardy. Reliance was placed on Lt. Governor, Delhi v. H.C. Narinder Singh13 in this regard.

33. With respect to the period from 07.11.2018 to 12.11.2018 being treated as dies-non, reliance was placed on Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India 14 to contend that absence must be wilful to constitute 10 (2014)15 SCC 11 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504 12 2018 SCC OnLine Gau 1620 13 (2004) 13 SCC 342 14 2012 SCC OnLine SC 162 W.P.(C) 8626/2022 Signature Not Verified Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.12.2025 19:04:48 misconduct. In the present case, the inability to join duty was due to ill- health, and therefore, the period could not have been treated as dies- non.

34. It was further contended that despite the Revisional Order, the petitioner was neither promptly informed thereof nor reinstated from the date he reported, i.e., 27.05.2020. Instead, reinstatement was made effective from 08.07.2020, upon refund of terminal dues. It was submitted that such a condition was extraneous, arbitrary, and unsupported by any rule or procedure, warranting grant of pay and allowances from 27.05.2020.

35. The learned Counsel also highlighted the inordinate delay in disposal of the appeal, revision, and mercy petition, in breach of the timelines prescribed under Standing Order No. 20/2001, thereby causing serious prejudice.

36. Lastly, reliance was placed on Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (supra), to submit that disciplining an employee suffering from mental disability amounts to indirect discrimination and violates statutory protection under the RPwD Act. It was argued that Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act prohibits dispensing with an employee who acquires disability during service and instead mandates accommodation on a suitable or supernumerary post.

37. Ultimately, the learned Counsel prayed for quashing of the impugned punishment dated 06.03.2020, declaration of reinstatement Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 8626/2022 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:03.12.2025 19:04:48 with effect from 27.05.2020 and grant of consequential benefits including full pay and allowances under F.R 54(2), and restoration of all service benefits. Submissions on behalf of the respondents

38. Per contra, Mr. Raj Kumar, learned CGSC for the respondents submits that the present writ petition was not maintainable before this Court for lack of territorial jurisdiction. It was submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bharatpur, Rajasthan and is presently posted in Pulwama, Jammu & Kashmir, and therefore, no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance was placed on Rajasthan High Court v. Jayaram,15 wherein the Supreme Court held that jurisdiction lies only where the cause of action arises.

39. It was further submitted that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, inasmuch as the Commandant, 5 Signal Battalion who was the Disciplinary Authority and passed the original penalty order, has not been impleaded. Reference in this regard was made to State of Assam v. Union of India16, to contend that non-impleadment of a necessary party is fatal to the proceedings.

40. The learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to defend himself, including supply of relevant