Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Patnam Naresh,Ysr Kadapa Dist vs Inspector Gen,Central Industrial ... on 5 February, 2024
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+WRIT PETITION No.28332 of 2011
%05.02.2024
#Between:
Patnam Naresh, S/o.Nagaraju,
aged about 21 years, Constable -
102380068 (now under orders of
termination) C.I.S.F.Unit, ONGC,
Hazira, R/o.H.No.2/153,
Hanumantagiri Village,
Jammalamadugu Mandal,
Y.S.R.Kadapa District.
...Petitioner
and
The Inspector General/WA
Central Industrial Security
Force, West Sector Head Office,
Taroja Complex, New Mumbai
Kargar, Maharastra State and 6
others
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Chetluru Sreenivas
Counsel for the respondents : Ms.P.Vijaya Kumari
(Central Government Counsel)
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2022 Live Law (AP) 123
This Court made the following:
-2-
WP.No.28332 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+WRIT PETITION No.28332 of 2011
#Between:
Patnam Naresh, S/o.Nagaraju,
aged about 21 years, Constable -
102380068 (now under orders of
termination) C.I.S.F.Unit, ONGC,
Hazira, R/o.H.No.2/153,
Hanumantagiri Village,
Jammalamadugu Mandal,
Y.S.R.Kadapa District.
...Petitioner
and
The Inspector General/WA
Central Industrial Security
Force, West Sector Head Office,
Taroja Complex, New Mumbai
Kargar, Maharastra State and 6
others
...Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 05.02.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the order?
Yes/No
_______________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
-3-
WP.No.28332 of 2011
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.28332 of 2011
ORDER :
The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings order dated
08.04.2011, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner
against the orders of termination was rejected. The
petitioner was terminated vide orders dated 07.02.2011
passed by the Commandant of CISF.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Constable on
27.07.2010 and he was on probation for a period of two
years. Soon after completing six and half months of training
the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 07.02.2011
terminating the petitioner from services.
3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate
Authority and the Appellate Authority rejected the Appeal.
4. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the Orders of
termination were passed by 2nd respondent whereas the
Appointing Authority is the 6th respondent. As such claims
that the 2nd respondent has no authority to issue the
termination orders.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 25
of CISF Rules, 2001 do not whisper about defective Colour
Vision as a Disqualification for continuation in Service and
as such the petitioner ought not to have been terminated by
invoking Rule 25.
6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the respondent authority ought to have
extended the benefits and Section 47 of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and
Full participation) Act, 1995.
7. The respondents have filed a counter and the learned
Central Government Counsel submits that the service of
the petitioner were rightly terminated. It is submitted that
the petitioner was sent for annual medical examination,
2010 under SHAPE Category to ONGC Hospital, Surat on
27.09.2010 and the Medical Officer found him with
defective Colour Vision.
8. The petitioner was sent for Re-medical check-up at AMI
EYE Hospital, Surat and the Medical Officer there found
him Colour Blind for Red and Green Colour of both eyes. As
per the rules and regulations of CISF the petitioner's case
was referred to Medical Examination which was to be
conducted by the Standing Medical Board. On 21.12.2010
the Standing Medical Board declared him unfit for service
in CISF. In pursuance of the said declaration the services of
the petitioner were terminated.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on
Ch.S.Rajeswara rao Vs. Govt., of A.P. rep.by Principal
Secretary, Transports Department and others1 and submits
that this Court has directed the respondent/corporation
therein to pay full salary to the petitioner therein for the
period during which he was not in service. It is also
submitted that this Court has also considered the relevant
provisions Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995.
10. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner would not be applicable to the present set of facts
and circumstances of the present case and it is also
pertinent to state that the provisions of the Act would be
applicable for an employee who suffers disability during the
course of employment.
2022 Live Law (AP) 123
11. The colour blindness which was detected when the
petitioner was subjected to medical examination cannot be
construed as a disability which occurred on account of
discharging the duties. Colour Blindness is generally
inherited through the genes of the parents or due to
physical or chemical damage to the eye.
12. It is not the case of the petitioner that the colour blindness
deficiency detected during the course of medical
examination was on account of any injury while in service
to the eye or the optic nerve of the eye. The Medical Board
also has not noted about any injury which could have
caused colour blindness to the petitioner. Section 47 of
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995 would be applicable
for an employee who acquires disability during his service.
As such, the petitioner cannot rely on the provisions of the
said Act and claim alternate employment.
13. The serving person of the respondent discharge very vital
functions such as safeguarding critical infrastructure such
as airports, seaports, power plants, oil refineries, and
government buildings. Specialized Fire Wing for handling
fire and rescue operations; involvement in disaster
management and relief efforts. Thus, the respondent could
not compromise on medical fitness of their men. Colour
blindness also cannot be attributed as a disability which
was acquired during the service of the petitioner.
14. The standard of preparedness of the men of CISF for any
eventuality is much higher than any other employee
discharging civil functions and other jobs. As such the
action of the respondents in terminating the services of the
petitioner cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, writ
petition is dismissed.
15. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, without costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
________________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dated 05.02.2024.
KGM
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.28332 of 2011
Dated 05.02.2024
KGM
