GEETABEN RATILAL PATEL vs. DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9324 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.7647 of 2011) GEETABEN  RATILAL PATEL          …  APPELLANT VERSUS DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER          …  RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated  JUDGMENT 4th November, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of  Gujarat High Court in L.P.A.No. 1988 of 2009 whereby  the Division Bench dismissed the said Letters Patent  Appeal preferred by the appellant and affirmed the  th order   dated   10   December,   2008   passed   by   learned  Single   Judge   in   Writ   Petition­Special   Civil  Application   No.   27730/2007.     In   the   said   writ  1 Page 1 petition the order passed by the Commissioner under  Section 62 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal  Opportunities,   Protection   of     Rights   and   Full  Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as  “the Act”)  in case No. 253/2007 was set aside.    2. The   main   question   that   arises   for   our  consideration   is   whether   the   Commissioner   under  Section 62 of the Act can look  into the legality of  the order  of  dismissal  from service of  a  disabled  person,    if it  comes  to his notice  that the said  person with   disabilities has been deprived of his  rights.  3. The     factual   matrix     of   the   case     is     as  follows: JUDGMENT th   The appellant who was appointed on 30   July,  1990   as   Primary   Teacher   in     Vagara   School     was  transferred   to   Primary   School,   Tal.Manda,   Bharuch  th from 18   June, 1999. Thereafter,   she proceeded on  st th medical leave from 21  June, 1999 to 30  July, 1999,  th and remained on leave  upto 7  September, 1999.  In  that respect, she had not produced any type of leave  th report.   Thereafter, from 15  September, 1999, she  2 Page 2 again   remained   absent   unauthorisedly   without  producing any kind of leave report. st  4. In   the   meantime,     on   31   December,   1999,   a  notice   was   issued   to   the   appellant   regarding   her  time to time absence and she was thereby   informed  to explain   in writing the grounds for her absence  within   seven   days.   But   neither   written   nor   oral  explanation   was     received   by   the   authorities.  Thereafter, she directly resumed her duties in the  th school   on     25   November,   2000.     The   Principal   of  Primary   School,   Manad   had   informed   the   same   to  Taluka   Development   Officer,   Bharuch,   who   in   turn  intimated   the   same   to   the     District   Panchayat  Committee,  Bharuch.    After    resumption  of  duty  on  th 25  November, 2000, the appellant went on leave from  JUDGMENT time   to   time   without   pay.     In   this   respect,     by  th memorandum     letter   dated     28   July,   2002   she   was  served with a charge­sheet  and  informed to submit  her explanation in writing within 7 days.  Since no  explanation was submitted by the appellant, she had  th  been   informed   in   writing   vide   letter     dated     4 March, 2003 to submit the medical certificate of  a  Civil Surgeon with respect to her illness within 7  3 Page 3 days.   But neither any medical certificate  nor any  explanation in writing or in oral,   was submitted.  th By   letter   dated   30   April,   2003     of     Taluka  Development   Officer,   Bharuch,     the   matter   was  referred to the higher authority.           Thereafter,  th the final notice was issued by letter dated 9  July,  2003 directing the appellant to explain in writing  within   7   days   for   her   continuous   absence,  irregularity and carelessness towards her duty.  The  appellant failed to submit her reply or explanation  to   the   said   notice   within   the   stipulated   period.  Therefore, by giving another opportunity of defence,  th   a   reminder   letter   was   issued   on   25 August,   2003  followed by another letter of similar nature dated  th 28   August, 2003.   Having received no reply again,  JUDGMENT th vide order dated 15   April, 2004 she was dismissed  from service by the respondent under Section 24 of  the   Primary   Education   Act   read   with   Gujarat  Panchayat   Services   (Discipline   and   Appeal)   Rules,  1997   on   the   ground   of   carelessness   towards   duty,  absence from duty, irregularity, breach of orders of  the higher authorities and having badly affected the  future of the children. 4 Page 4 5. For about three years, no action was taken by  appellant.     In   the   year   2007   she   filed   an  application before the Commissioner under Section 62  of     the Act.   The said application was registered  as Case No. 253/2007.  In the said application, the  appellant   took   plea   that   the   order   of   dismissal  passed   by   the   authorities   while   she   was   suffering  from   mental   illness   was   in   violation   of   Section  47(1) of the Act.   The appellant requested for her  reinstatement with full back­wages. 6. The   complaint   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   was  filed and verified by her father.     Therefore, the  Commissioner while issuing notice to the respondent  th  authority also issued notice to the appellant on 30 June,   2007   calling   upon   both   the   parties   to   be  JUDGMENT present on 24th July, 2007 at the time of hearing. 7. At   the   time   of   hearing   the   appellant   herself  remained present alongwith her father and on behalf  of   the   respondent   Shri   Maganbhai   B.   Vasava,   Head  Clerk and Shri Dilavarshinh A. Raj, Junior Clerk had  remained   present.     The   appellant   contended   that  though   she   was   physically   healthy   at   the   time   of  joining the services because of mental illness that  5 Page 5 developed afterwards she was treated by doctors time  to   time,   who   advised   her   to   take   rest.     She  specifically pleaded that since she was divorced by  her husband in the year 1998,  she started suffering  from mental depression which resulted in 40 to   70  per   cent   mental   disability.     A   certificate   issued  by the Medical Board of Government Hospital was also  produced  before the Commissioner.     8. On behalf of respondent, it was contended that  the appellant  unauthorisedly  remained    absent  from  service from time to time and   in spite of giving  opportunity to her, she never replied and because of  her   carelessness   and   negligence   towards   duty,   the  students suffered. It was further submitted that  a  charge sheet was also issued to her in this regard  JUDGMENT but    having received  no reply  from  her,    she  was  dismissed from service. 9.  The Commissioner after hearing the parties and  on   perusal     of   the   evidence   held     that   as   the  appellant   was   suffering   from     40   to   70   per   cent  mental   disability   at   the   time   of   dismissal,     the  said order of dismissal was void. It was also held  that if  the appellant is not in a position  to work  6 Page 6 in   the large educational interest of the students  then  an appropriate post should be created for her  and her appointment    to that  post  be  made  as  per  Section   47   of   the   Act.   It   was   also   directed     to  count  the  intervening  period as continuous period  in service without any break and also to select the  place of service of the appellant in such a manner  that   she     can   live   with     her   parents     as   she  requires   constant   assistance   to   become   mentally  healthy.  10. The respondent challenged the  said order before  the   learned   Single   Judge   of     the   High   Court   in  Special   Civil   Application   No.   27730/2007.     In   the  said   case,   the   learned   Single   Judge   passed   an  th interim   order   on   11   January,   2008   with   following  JUDGMENT observation:­  “ 2. Upon hearing the learned Counsel  for both the sides, it prima facie  appears   that   the   respondent   was  engaged   as   a   teacher     in   the   year  1990 and it is an admitted position  that she continued in service up to  1999,     for   a   period   of   about   9  years.  In the year 1999, on account  of the divorce, she sustained mental  disability and as a result thereof,  she   had   undergone   a   prolonged  treatment.     Due   to   mental  disability,   it   appears   that   she  7 Page 7 might   not   have   appeared   in   the  inquiry proceedings initiated by the  petitioner.   As per the petitioner,  she   remained   absent   and   not   even  defended the inquiry proceedings and  the   order   of   dismissal   was   passed.  It   is   true   that   the   order   of  dismissal   is   not   challenged   by   the  respondent before the higher forum,  however,   she   has   approached   the  Commissioner   for   physically  Handicapped   persons   and   ultimately,  the   Commissioner   has   passed   the  order,   setting   aside   the   dismissal  and also interim directions.   3. Whether the Commissioner has no  power to set aside the order of the  dismissal   or   not   deserves  consideration,     but   at   the   same  time,  it also appears that it is on  account   of   the   mental   disability,  the   respondent   could   not   defend   in  the   proceedings   and   as   a   result  thereof,     the   order   of   dismissal  came   to   be   passed.     It   is   an  admitted   position   that   the  respondent is mentally disabled and,  therefore,   had   the   order   of  dismissal   not   been   there,   the  respondent otherwise would have been  entitled   to   the   benefits   of     the  Act,   namely;     The   Persons   with  Disabilities   (Equal   Opportunities,  etc.)   Act,   1995   and   more  particularly,     Section   47   of   the  Act.” JUDGMENT “4. Ms.   Mandavia,     learned   Counsel  appearing   for   the   petitioner,  however, submitted that it is not a  case   of   dismissal   from   the   service  on account of the mental disability  or   reduction   in   rank   and   ,  therefore,   if   the   dismissal   has  already taken place,   it cannot be  set aside by the Commissioner, which  8 Page 8 may   result   into   consequential  reinstatement   in   service   with   back  wages   and   other   directions.     She  also   submitted   that   on   account   of  the   mental   disability   of     the  respondent,  she is not at all in a  position   to     discharge   any   other  work also. 5. Whereas,     Mr.   Jani,     learned   Counsel   appearing     for   the  respondent submitted that as per the  medical certificate produced on page  60   of   the   Chief   District   Medical  Officer and Civil Surgeon,   she has  mental   disability   upto   40   to   70%  and,   therefore,   she   may   be   in   a  position to do minor manual work in  the School,  if assigned to her. 6. It   appears   that   if   the   person  has   sustained   physical   disability,  including that of mental disability  while   in   service,     it   would   be  required for the authority to extend  benefit   of   Section   47   of   the   Act.  Keeping in view   the peculiar facts  and   circumstances   that   when   the  departmental actions were initiated,  she   had   already   sustained   mental  disability, a pragmatic approach is  required to be taken. Further,   it  will be for the concerned Doctor to  certify   regarding   the   nature   of  duty,     which   can   safely   and  conveniently   be   performed   by   the  respondent after due examination. JUDGMENT 7. Since,   at   this   stage,       the  order   of   dismissal   is   yet   not  finalized by this Court,   there may  not be any payment of backwages and  ultimately whether the  Commissioner  has   power   or   not   is   an   aspect  finally to be decided at the  later  stage.     However,   it appears that  since   the   respondent   is   having  9 Page 9 mental   disability   of   40   to   70   per  cent,   it would be just and proper  to allow the operation of  the order  passed by the Commissioner so as to  enable the respondent to get regular  salary and after examination by the  competent   doctor   appropriate   duty  may be assigned to her. 8. In view of the aforesaid,  I am  inclined   to   pass   the   following  order:­ RULE (a)By interim order,  there shall be stay  against   the   impugned   order   of   the  Commissioner   to   the   extent   that   the  petitioner shall not be required to pay  any backwages to the respondent, but the  petitioner shall reinstate the respondent  in   service   by   paying   regular   salary   to  her from 1.2.2008. (b)It is further observed that directed  that the petitioner shall get respondent  examined through a Government Doctor of  their choice and if it is so opined by  the doctor,   such duty   may be assigned  to the respondent at a place or a nearby  place,   where   she   can   comfortably   and  conveniently,   in   a   safe   atmosphere,  discharge duty.” JUDGMENT 11. The  case   was  subsequently  taken  up  by  another  th learned   Single   Judge   on   10   December,   2008   who  finally   disposed   of   the   matter.     This   time     the  learned Single Judge neither perused the report of  the     government   doctor   nor   noticed   the   question  10 Page 10 whether the interim order passed by the High Court on  11.1.2008   was   complied   by   assigning     duty   to   the  appellant   at   the   nearby   place   where   she     can  comfortably   and   conveniently     in   safe     atmosphere  discharge   her   duties.     Learned   Single   Judge   also  failed   to   decide   the   question   whether   the  Commissioner  had jurisdiction to interfere with the  th order   of   dismissal.     On     10   December,   2008,  learned  Single Judge dismissed the  writ petition on  the following grounds  and observation:­ “14.   In   the   present   case,   the  respondent has remained on long leave  and   she   has   not   responded   to   any   of  the communications  by  the  petitioner.  Her   services   were   terminated   in   the  year   2004   on   the   ground   of  absenteeism. Though the respondent was  asked   to   produce   certificate   she   has  failed to comply with the same. JUDGMENT 15. In short, after 2004 she was not  in   service   and   therefore,   the  respondent   cannot   rely   upon   the  provisions   of   said   section   which  clearly   states   that   no   establishment  shall   dispense   with,   or   reduce   in  rank,   an   employee   who   acquires   a  disability   during   his   service.   I   am  therefore   of   the   view   that   the   said  section   would   be   of   no   help   to   the  respondent.   Even   otherwise,   she   had  served   for   only   2   months   and   she  remained absent from 1990 prior to act  came into force.  11 Page 11 16. As regards the contention that the  respondent sick, it is required to be  noted that the respondent was asked to  produce medical certificate which  was  not   produced.   Further   it   is   required  to be noted that she has served only  for 20 months in all. 17. Even otherwise the respondent was  dismissed   in   the   year   2004.   She   has  challenged   the   said   decision   after   a  period of more than three years, which  is  grossly  time­barred. The competent  authority ought to have applied their  mind   before   passing   the   impugned  order.  The  Commissioner has therefore  committed   an   error   in   setting   aside  the order of termination. 18.   In   any   case   the   absenteeism   is  from the year 1990, prior to the Act  came into force. The provisions of the  Act   will   apply   only   during   service.  Therefore   the   contention   of   the  petitioner cannot be accepted. 19.   It   is   also   required   to   be   noted  that   the   respondent   was   teacher   and  she remained  absent unreasonably  long  period as a result of which the post  was vacant and the petitioner was not  able to appoint anybody. The ultimate  sufferers   were   the   students.   In   such  situation, I am of the view that the  competent   authority   was   justified   in  dismissing   the   respondent   after  following the proper procedure.” JUDGMENT 12. On an appeal, the Division Bench by its impugned  th order   dated   4   November,   2009   affirmed   the   order  passed by the  learned Single Judge and the same is  12 Page 12 under challenge before this Court now.  The Division  Bench  also   committed   the   same  error   as   the   Single  Judge, by not deciding the question of jurisdiction  of   the Commissioner   and the question whether the  appellant   was   entitled   for   benefits   under   Section  47(1)  of  the Act. 13. The   Persons   with   Disabilities   (Equal  Opportunities,   Protection   of     Rights   and   Full  Participation) Act  was enacted in  1995 pursuant to  meet the following object and reasons: (i) to spell out the responsibility of the  State   towards   the   prevention   of  disabilities,   protection   of     rights,  provision   of   medical   care,   education,  training, employment and rehabilitation  of persons with disabilities; (ii) to create barrier free environment for  persons with disabilities; JUDGMENT (iii)to   remove   any   discrimination   against  persons with disabilities in the sharing of  development   benefits,   vis­à­vis     non­ disabled persons; (iv)to   counteract   any   situation   of   the  abuse and the exploitation of persons with  disabilities; (v)to lay down a strategy for comprehensive  development of programmes and services and  equalization   of   opportunities   for   persons  with disabilities; and 13 Page 13 (vi)to   make   special   provision   of   the  integration   of   persons   with   disabilities  into the social mainstream.

Chief   Commissioner   and   Commissioners   for   Persons  with Disabilities  have been laid down under Chapter  XII  of  the Act. 14 Page 14 Under   Section   58(c)     of   the   Act   the   Chief  Commissioner   shall   take     steps   to   safeguard   the  rights   and   facilities   made   available   to   persons  with disabilities. The Commissioner is empowered under Section 62  of the Act to look into the complaints in respect to  matters relating to deprivation of rights of  persons  with disabilities, which reads as follows:­

(a) deprivation  of rights of persons with  disabilities; (b)   non­implementation   of   laws,   rules,  bye­laws,   regulations,   executive   orders,  guidelines or instructions made or issued  by   the   appropriate   Governments   and   the  local   authorities   for   the   welfare   and  protection   of   rights   of   persons   with  disabilities, and     take   up   the   matter   with   the  appropriate authorities.” JUDGMENT 16.      The provisions of Sections 47 and 62 of the  Act,   when   read   together,   empower   the   Commissioner,  to   look     into   the   complaint   with   respect   to   the  15 Page 15 matters relating to deprivation of rights of persons  with   disabilities   and   non­implementation   of   laws,  rules,   bye­laws,   regulations,   executive   orders,  guidelines or instructions issued by the appropriate  Governments or local authorities and to   take up the  matter   with   the   appropriate   authorities     for   the  welfare   and protection of   rights of persons with  disabilities   including   matter   relating   to  dispensation with service or reduction in rank.  The  power   of   the   Commissioner     “to   look   into   the  complaints   with  respect  to  the   matters  relating  to  deprivation of rights” as provided under Section 62  of   the   Act   is   not   an   empty   formality   and     the  Commissioner   is   required   to   apply   his   mind   on   the  question raised by the complainant   to find out the  JUDGMENT truth behind the complaint.   If so necessary,   the  Commissioner may   suo motu    inquire into the matter  and/or after giving notice,   hearing   the concerned  parties and going through the records may decide the  complaint.         If     it   comes   to   the   notice   of   the  Commissioner that a person with  disability has been  deprived of his rights or that the authorities have  flouted   any   law,     rule,     guideline,     instruction,  16 Page 16 etc. issued  by the  appropriate Government or local  authorities,  the  Commissioner  is required to take  up   the   matter   with   the   appropriate   authority   to  ensure restoration of rights of such disabled person  and/or   to   implement   the   law,   rule,   guideline,  instruction if not followed.  A complaint may be made  by any disabled person himself   or   any   person on  behalf of  disabled persons or  by any person in the  interest   of   disabled   persons.     Thus   the   issue   as  involved is  decided  affirmatively in favour of the  appellant and against the respondent.       17. The appellant was appointed as  Primary Teacher  th on   30   July,   1990   and   continued   for     nine   years  without any complaint till she proceeded on medical  st leave on   21   June, 1999. She thereafter, remained  JUDGMENT absent from time to time for about 1360 days from  June,   1999   till     the   date   of   dismissal.     The  appellant   has   taken   a   specific   plea   that   she   was  divorced by her  husband in the  year 1998 and since  then she suffered mental depression.  The Government  Medical   Board   also   held   the   appellant   mentally  disabled as she was suffering from 40 to 70 per cent  mental     disability.     The   order   of   dismissal   was  17 Page 17 passed during her mental disability  in violation of  Section 47(1) of the Act.   In this background,  the  Commissioner having declared the  order of dismissal  as   void,     it   was   not   open   to   the   High   Court     to  interfere with such order and to restore the illegal  order of dismissal. 18. Whether     under   Section   62   of   the   Act,   the  Commissioner  was  competent to declare the order of  dismissal  as void,  was one of the question framed  by     the   learned   Single   Judge   by   order   dated  11.1.2008.   But at the time of hearing,  the learned  Single   Judge   failed   to   notice   and   decide     the  question so raised. The Division Bench also failed to  notice the aforesaid  fact and remained silent on the  issue.  JUDGMENT 19. From   the   documents     on   record,   we   find   that  show cause notices were issued to the appellant  and  charges   were   framed   but     there   is   nothing   on   the  record   to   suggest   that   any   departmental   proceeding  was   initiated.     Neither   any   inquiry   officer   was  appointed, nor any  notice was issued by any inquiry  officer   to   the   appellant   to   remain   present   in   the  departmental   proceeding.   No       evidence   was   relied  18 Page 18 upon   by   the   respondent   to   bring   home   the   charges.  Aforesaid facts also show that the order of dismissal  was       passed   in   violation   of   rules   of   natural  justice.  20. Now the  question remains about the back wages,  if any, to which the appellant is entitled.       The  appellant   remained absent   from duty from time to  time for about 1360 days  when she was  in service.  Therefore, she  cannot claim any wages for  the said  period.     The   order   of   dismissal     was   passed   on  15.4.2004,   but she moved   before the Commissioner  after a span of  three years i.e. in the year 2007.  There being delay on her part,  in moving before the  Commissioner,  she cannot  claim any salary  for such  intervening period. JUDGMENT 21.     Learned Single Judge by interim order dated  th 11   January,   2008   directed   the   respondent   to  reinstate the appellant and to pay her regular salary  w.e.f  1.2.2008 on the following  terms:  “8. RULE (a)By interim order,  there shall be stay  against   the   impugned   order   of   the  Commissioner   to   the   extent   that   the  petitioner shall not be required to pay  19 Page 19 any backwages to the respondent, but the  petitioner shall reinstate the respondent  in   service   by   paying   regular   salary   to  her from 1.2.2008. (b)It is further observed that directed  that the petitioner shall get respondent  examined through a Government Doctor of  their choice and if it is so opined by  the doctor,   such duty   may be assigned  to the respondent at a place or a nearby  place,   where   she   can   comfortably   and  conveniently,   in   a   safe   atmosphere,  discharge duty.” 22. Inspite of the same,  the respondent  authority  have     neither     reinstated   the   appellant   nor   paid  salary   w.e.f.   1.2.2008.   So,   they   cannot   take  advantage of their own wrong and, thereby,   cannot  deny the benefit  of wages to which the appellant was  entitled   pursuant   to   the   order   passed   by   the   High  JUDGMENT th Court on 11  January, 2008.   23. There is nothing on the record to suggest that  the respondent authority got the appellant examined  by a Government Doctor to determine the duty to be  assigned to her.  In view of her reinstatement, now  the   respondent   authority   may     get   opinion   of   the  doctor   for   assigning   her   duty.         In     case   the  appellant is not  in a position to perform the normal  20 Page 20 duty because of her mental condition,  the competent  authority   will   apply     Proviso   to   Section   47(1)   of  the said Act.  24. Having regard to the fact   that we have upheld  the order  passed by the Commissioner,  we direct the  authorities   to reinstate the appellant in service  immediately   and   to   pay   her   regular     salary   every  month.   The appellant shall be entitled to arrears  of salary w.e.f. 1.2.2008 which the respondent shall  pay   within   three   months,   else   the   appellant   shall  become entitled to interest at the   rate of 6% per  annum   with   effect   from   1.2.2008   till   the   actual  payment.   25. The  appeal  is  allowed  in  the   manner  indicated  above   and   the   orders   passed   by   the   learned   Single  JUDGMENT Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are  set aside.    There shall be no order as to costs.   ..……………………………………………..J. ( G.S. SINGHVI )     .……………………………………………….J.        ( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA ) NEW DELHI, JULY 2,  2013. 21 Page 21 JUDGMENT 22 Page 22