SC-INITIATING DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY IS A FACET OF DISCRIMINATION. (INDIRECT)

The Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath, and Surya Kant observed that initiating disciplinary action against a person with a disability is a facet of discrimination (indirect). The Top Court made the observation while setting aside a disciplinary proceeding against an officer of the Central Reserve Police Force, diagnosed with 40-70% mental disability.

The Court said, “A PwD is entitled to protection under the Rights of Person with Disabilities Act, 2016 as long as the person’s disability was one of the factors for the discrimination”. ‘Mental disability need not be the only cause for misconduct that led to disciplinary proceedings. Mental disability damages the ability of a person to comply with the standards set in the workplace in comparison to their able-bodied. Such persons are more likely to be subjected to proceedings and thus, such initiation is a facet of indirect discrimination”.

The appellant joined the police force in 2001. On April 18, 2010, while the appellant was serving in Ajmer, the Deputy Inspector General filed a complaint before the Alwar Gate Police Station stating that the appellant was obsessed with killing or getting killed. 

An inquiry was initiated against the appellant, and approx. 6 charges were framed against him such as – Remained absent from morning maker, appearing before the TV and print media without the prior consent of the department, usage of unparliamentary language, intentionally causing accident and assault of a deputy commander. In 2013, a report of the inquiry was submitted and in view of the same, a notice was issued in 2015 to the appellant. Subsequently, two were inquiries were initiated against him on various grounds. Simultaneously, the appellant was categorized as permanently disabled after suffering from OCD and secondary major depression in 2009. In 2016, the hospital reports declared him unfit for duty. 

The SC bench set aside the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the appellant and observed “the appellant is rightfully entitled to be protected u/s 20(4) of the Act in the event he is found unsuitable for his duty. He should be re-assigned to another post, his pay and conditions of services should be protected. The authorities are at the liberty to assign any other position that does not involve firearms or other equipment.”

Author: Papiha Ghoshal