Nazmal Hasan Siddiqui vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2898 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Date of Decision: 30th May, 2011

+                                  W.P.(C) 621/2011

        NAZMAL HASAN SIDDIQUI         ..... Petitioner
                Through: Mr.Anurag Tomar, Advocate

                                   versus

        UNION OF INDIA AND 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?
     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Vide order dated 12.5.2009, stating that the petitioner had been declared permanently invalidated, he was discharged from service against which representation filed has been negated vide order dated 10.11.2010, both of which are under challenge in the instant writ petition.

2. The petitioner alleges mala fide against Commandant Smt.Aparajita R. and claims that she is the culprit and in support of said allegation, factual matrix presented by the petitioner in the pleadings is that she was the officer who was responsible for transferring the petitioner to the 128th CRPC Bn. at Guwahati knowing fully well that

petitioner and his wife were working at the 107th Bn. at Delhi. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court in which directions were issued that the policy requiring husband and wife to be both posted at one station should be kept in view by the department and transfer-posting be reconsidered and when the department did not do the needful he was constrained to file a contempt petition in which Aparajita R. was a contemnor. Since petitioner secured his transfer-posting at the Battalion where his wife was stationed Aparajita R. got angry and made wrong entries in petitioner's ACR in which she incorrectly recorded that the petitioner is a manipulative person who shirks postings and acts as if he suffers from Bipolar Mood Disorder to take advantage of the same.

3. Petitioner alleges that on 20.12.2008 at the instance of Commandant Smt.Aparajita R. he was brought before a Medical Board, members whereof were influenced by her and that the Board gave a wrong report that the petitioner was suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder. Petitioner claims that after he was medically invalided he got himself checked up from doctors at Srinagar who opined that the petitioner was not suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder.

4. We may highlight that in the writ petition the petitioner has suppressed information of his being treated for acute stress disorder since the year 2006, a fact which the petitioner has admitted in the rejoinder filed.

5. As per the counter affidavit filed, the petitioner was enlisted as a Constable on 8.4.1991 and all was well till the year 2005. Abnormalities were detected in the behaviour of

the petitioner and in July 2006 he was treated for acute stress disorder at the Composite Hospital Guwahati. He was admitted at the hospital at the Composite CRPF Hospital on 19.7.2006 and was discharged on 4.8.2006. He was on constant medication as disclosed in Annexure R-1 being the discharge certificate noting the medicines which the petitioner had to take.

6. Petitioner was again admitted at the Composite CRPF Hospital at Guwahati on 4.10.2006 and was diagnosed as suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder. In-house treatment was given till he was discharged on 17.10.2006. Medicines which the petitioner had to take for the psychiatric problem stand noted in the discharge certificate dated 17.10.2006. In the certificate it was mentioned that the petitioner was fit for duties without firearm.

7. Petitioner was referred to a Neutral Hospital i.e. Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences Hospital at New Delhi where they found the petitioner to be suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder. From 9.12.2006 till 6.2.2007 petitioner was treated at the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences at Delhi for psychiatric problem. Thereafter petitioner continued to receive treatment from the Composite CRPF Hospital at Jammu. Medicine given was for the psychiatric problem, Bipolar Mood Disorder. Thereafter petitioner had to be admitted at the CRPF Composite Hospital at Delhi on 15.9.2007. He was found suffering from Hypomania. He remained admitted at the Composite CRPF Hospital at Delhi till 26.9.2007.

8. In the evening of 3.2.2008 the petitioner was found hurling abusing at the Commandant and the DIGP, CRPF. He was shouting that he would gun down the DIGP and the Commandant. Petitioner was directed to appear before the Medical Board on 2.12.2008 where it was opined that it would not be in public interest to retain the petitioner in service and assessing the disability at 30% petitioner was discharged from service.

9. Respondents rely upon standing order No.7 of 1999 (Annexure R-9) as per which a person found to be suffering from psychiatric sickness is required to be discharged from service.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner had no answer to the pleadings in the counter affidavit which we note have been made good with reference to the medical records of the petitioner.

11. Indeed, the record shows that since July 2006 till he was discharged from service, petitioner had to be repeatedly hospitalized for a psychiatric problem and all throughout he continued to be under medication.

12. If this be so we see no wrong in the action taken by the respondents in invalidating the petitioner on medical grounds and paying him the dues payable as a result of his being invalidated. As a Constable in CRPF the petitioner has to carry arms and indeed it would be dangerous to have a person suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder to be carrying arms. The plea of mala fide raised by the petitioner against the Commandant Smt.Aparajita R. falls in the teeth of the documentary evidence produced by the respondents for our

perusal and copies annexed as various annexures to the counter affidavit filed.

13. We find no error in the action taken by the respondents and thus we dismiss the writ petition but refrain from imposing any costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE

MAY 30, 2011 mm