Indraj Singh vs Uoi And Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4858 Del

$~6
 *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 8756/2011

%                                Date of Decision: 23rd October, 2013

      INDRAJ SINGH                                 ..... Petitioner
                        Through:       Mr.Arun Srivastava, Adv.

                        versus

      UOI AND ORS.                          ..... Respondents
                        Through:       Ms.Barkha Babbar, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner in this case has prayed for a direction of this

court to conduct a Court of Inquiry qua examining and giving opinion

as to whether the condition of the petitioner is attributable or

aggravated by his service conditions. It appears that while deployed

at Tripura between 26th January, 2001 to 11th February, 2001, the

petitioner was treated in the Battalion Headquarters at Nalkata as a

suspected case of PF Malaria. Upon discharge on 11 th February,

2001, he was advised line rest for two days. The petitioner has

submitted before us that his condition did not improve and on 20 th

February, 2001 he had applied for 60 days earned leave for "self

treatment". This application was processed by the Commandant as

well as Dr.B.N.Das. The petitioner also submits that he had been

advised to take leave and for treatment in some good hospital for the

reason that there was no good facility available within reach at the

petitioner‟s place of posting. The petitioner was also advised not to

proceed alone on sick leave to his own station and was advised to

search for a person of his own station who could accompany him upto

his house. He has claimed before us that HC Budhram who belongs

to Jaipur was requested by the petitioner and had accompanied him to

his home town. The petitioner submits that the earned leave was

sanctioned only after the intervention by Dr.B.N.Das on 8 th March,

2001. It is the petitioner‟s contention that all these circumstances

clearly establish that the petitioner developed the disease while on

bonafide duty and that he was not well when he proceeded on leave as

advised.

2. Accompanied by HC Budhram the petitioner was able to reach

his house only on 11th March, 2001. Without any delay on 13th

March, 2001, the petitioner was taken to SMS Hospital, Jaipur as he

was feeling severe headache and pain in spinal cord accompanied with

the blockage of his urinary passage. The petitioner has submitted that

he remained unconscious for two days and thereafter felt paralysed in

lower half portion of his body. This position has continued thereafter.

3. On 19th April, 2001, an application for leave was sent on behalf

of the petitioner to the Unit. On 6th August, 2001, the petitioner was

brought from Jaipur and he received treatment at the All India

Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi till 6th October, 2002.

4. On 22nd November, 2005, the petitioner applied for the inquiry

about his disease and for the payment of Seema Prahari Bima Yojna

(SPBY) as well as Hard Area lump-sum grant.

5. The Court of Inquiry was directed by an order passed on 14 th

August, 2006. A man Court of Inquiry was conducted by

Sh.M.P.S.Rana, Deputy Commandant on 1st November, 2006.

6. The petitioner submits that this Inquiry was misconceived and

proceeded on a presumption as if the petitioner was suffering from

Pulmonary Tuberculosis which was incorrect.

7. In this regard, our attention has been drawn to the report dated

18th June, 2002 submitted by Dr.(Prof.) D.S.Mathur with regard to the

petitioner‟s condition in reference to the letter dated 7th May, 2002. A

perusal of the report would show that Dr.D.S.Mathur had diagnosed

sickness of the petitioner as a case of „tubercular arachnoiditis‟. The

report mentions that the petitioner was on anti tubercular treatment for

the last one and a half years.

8. The respondents also appear to have passed an order dated 14th

August, 2006 directing another one man Court of Inquiry. On 1st

November, 2006, such Court of Inquiry was conducted by

Sh.M.P.S.Rana, Deputy Commandant.

9. The petitioner complains that the concerned doctor who had

seen him for the first time, namely, Dr.B.N.Das was not examined.

He also points out that HC Budhram who had accompanied the

petitioner from Tripura to Jaipur was also not examined. Without

examining these material witnesses, the respondents have arrived at a

conclusion that the petitioner‟s disease was not attributable to his

service condition and that the disability which resulted to him was not

caused during the government duty.

10. It is noteworthy that according to the respondents, the petitioner

received treatment at the Composite Hospital, Tekanpur between 6th

October, 2002 to 2nd November, 2004. The petitioner has physically

reported to the Battalion Headquarters, 126, BSF, Nalkata on 3rd

January, 2005.

11. The opinion of the Court of Inquiry records that there is no

physical evidence that his disability was caused during government

duty hence it was opined that no question arose for providing him

benefit of Seema Prahari Bima Yojna or the Hard Area lump-sum

grant.

12. The prayer in the instant writ petition is to the effect that given

the omissions in the court of Inquiry as noticed above and mentioned

in the writ petition, the respondents are required to be directed to

conduct a court of Inquiry afresh giving full opportunity to the

petitioner to place the record of his treatment and disease and also

after examining the material witnesses. We are of the opinion that

such an inquiry is essential to effectively adjudicate upon the claim of

the petitioner for grant of the aforenoticed amounts as well as the

computation of any other service element or financial benefit which

may be admissible to a person who was disabled on account of any

cause which may be held to be attributable to his service conditions.

13. In view of the above, we direct as follows:

(i) The respondents shall appoint a Court of Inquiry afresh which

shall examine the circumstances and cause leading to the

petitioner‟s sickness and medical condition.

(ii) The Court of Inquiry shall also give adequate opportunity to the

petitioner to place such medical record or other evidence which

would facilitate the work of the Court of Inquiry.

(iii) The respondents shall ensure that all evidence relevant for

arriving at a conclusion with regard to the petitioner‟s condition

at the relevant time is brought before the court of Inquiry. The

complete record of the petitioner‟s sickness and treatment shall

also be produced before the Court of Inquiry.

(iv) The appointment of the Court of Inquiry shall be effected

within three weeks from today.

(v) The respondents may consider posting of a medical specialist

having expertise in the matter as part of the Court of Inquiry.

(vi) The report of the Court of Inquiry shall be submitted within

four months from the date of commencement of proceedings.

Copy thereof shall be furnished to the petitioner.

(vii) The petitioner shall be at liberty to invoke legal remedy, if

aggrieved by the inquiry report.

This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

Dasti to parties.

GITA MITTAL, J

DEEPA SHARMA, J OCTOBER 23, 2013 rb