Delhi High Court
Ex. Si Satya Brat Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 13 October, 2009
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
R-19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 13th October, 2009
+ W.P.(C) No.2660/1992
EX. SI SATYA BRAT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Advocate
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? No
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)
1. Petitioner states that being a patient of severe
depression and being psychologically imbalanced, he was not in
a position to understand what he was doing; in any case, an act
by a person in the state of insanity cannot bind him. So stating,
it is prayed by the petitioner that the action of the respondents in
accepting his letter seeking to resign from service under the
respondents be quashed and a direction be issued to reinstate
the petitioner in service.
2. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the
petitioner was detected as a patient of chronic „Alopacea‟. Hair
from all parts of his body started falling. Being a young man, the
petitioner went into a stage of depression and during his visit to
the Chief Medical Officer of BSF, was advised to submit a
resignation, for the reason the Chief Medical Officer found that
the petitioner was a case of severe depression.
3. The petitioner alleges that the Chief Medical Officer
got typed the letter of resignation. It was signed by the
petitioner and forwarded to the concerned officer for acceptance.
4. The petitioner relies upon a letter dated 26.6.1990
addressed by the Additional Deputy Director Medicine of BSF,
Commandant 143 Battalion BSF which reads as under:-
"Reference your office letter
No.0221/Estt/143/90/6517-18 dated 25 May‟ 90.
No.880022134 SI Satyabrat Singh of your unit
appeared before me as directed vide your above
letter. I personally known this case for the last one
year and he is suffering from ailments which will take
very long time for treatment and result are not very
certain. Being a case of Depressive Psychosis I feel
he cannot be a useful SI for the Force.
Therefore, it is strongly recommended that his prayer
for resignation may kindly be considered
sympathetically. Otherwise also we have to hold a
medical board and declare him unfit for further
service which will involve a lengthy official procedure.
With regard."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the said
letter shows that the Additional Deputy Director Medicine has
categorically stated that in case resignation of the petitioner is
not accepted, the petitioner would have to be declared medically
unfit for serving under BSF. Counsel urges that the said letter
shows the involvement of the Chief Medical Officer BSF in
obtaining the letter of resignation submitted by the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is
not a case of permanent insanity claimed by the petitioner.
Counsel urges that medical evidence relied upon by the
petitioner shows that he was suffering from depression but not
permanent depression or a depression of a kind which rendered
the petitioner incapable of taking any decision. In any case,
submits the learned counsel for the respondent, if this Court were
to hold that the letter of resignation submitted by the petitioner
was not voluntary on account of petitioner suffering from
depression, in view of the fact that the petitioner admitted his
disability, the respondent would have a right to take action to
terminate the services of the petitioner on account of medical
disability. Counsel points out that in the year 1991, when
petitioner was relieved from service after letter of resignation
submitted by him was accepted, the petitioner had served for
less than 3 years and even did not have the requisite qualifying
services.
7. It is unfortunate that a writ petition raising a simple
issue, filed in the year 1992, could not be decided by this Court
till today.
8. The petitioner joined service under the respondent on
1.1.1988 and stopped reporting for duty after a few months. He
did not submit any application for leave and before the
respondents could take action under the service rules applicable,
he submitted a letter on 1.6.1990 tendering his resignation which
was accepted and that was the end of his service under the
respondents till the petitioner raked up the issue in the year
1992.
9. We are inclined to agree with the submissions urged
by learned counsel for the respondent that in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case, it would be difficult to grant
any relief to the petitioner.
10. Firstly, for the reason, due to „Alopacea‟, a condition
not claimed to be attributable to the service under the
respondents, the petitioner, a young man aged 28 years, went
into a state of depression; but not of a kind proved on record,
rendering petitioner to be equated as an insane person. Thus, it
cannot be said that the petitioner signed on the dotted lines
while submitting the letter of resignation.
11. We note that the Chief Medical Officer, in respect of
whom, the petitioner claims having been compelled or made to
sign the letter of resignation, has not been impleaded as a
respondent. He/she alone could have refuted the allegations of
the petitioner.
12. That apart, a highly disputed question of fact,
requiring evidence to be led, has been raised in the instant
petition.
13. Assuming that the petitioner was in state of such
depression that his rationality was impaired; the effect would be
that the petitioner, employed as a Sub Inspector under BSF,
would be rendered incapacitated on medical grounds to serve
under the respondent and in said eventuality also would be liable
to be discharged on medical grounds. Noting that as of the year
1990 the petitioner had rendered just about 2 years of service, it
would make no difference for the reason the petitioner had not
even qualified for pensionable service in the year 1990.
14. Declining relief as prayed for, we dismiss the writ
petition.
15. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(SURESH KAIT)
JUDGE
October 13, 2009
mm
