Madhya Pradesh High Court

Lalit Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India on 24 March, 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
WRIT PETITION No. 3224 of 2024
LALIT KUMAR YADAV
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
___________________________________________________________
Appearance:

Mr. M.P.S. Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Mr. Vineet -

Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Praveen Kumar Newaskar - Deputy Solicitor General for Union

of India.

&
WRIT PETITION No. 4890 of 2024
LALIT KUMAR YADAV
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Mr. M.P.S. Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Mr. Vineet -

Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Praveen Kumar Newaskar - Deputy Solicitor General for

Union of India.

_____________________________________________________________________

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BARKHA
SHARMA
Signing time: 03/24/2025
05:36:21 PM
2

Whether approved for reporting :Yes/No

Reserved on : 17.03.2025

Delivered on : 24.03.2025

ORDER

1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner

has filed these writ petitions. Since these petitions have been filed by the

petitioner, wherein common issue is raised, both the petitions are being

disposed off by common order.

2. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted as Deputy

Commandant, Group Center, CRPF, Panihar, District Gwalior.

3. As per the allegations made, the petitioner, on 14.02.2019, while

working as Deputy Commandant at GC, CRPF, Gwalior, misbehaved with

Mr. Rajnish Ahlawat, Commandant, GC, CRPF, Gwalior by using

derogatory and abusive/objectionable language. He attempted to attack his

with thermos like bottle. It is also alleged that he also used derogatory and

abusive language against DIG, GC, CRPF, Gwalior. It is further alleged

that the petitioner, on 18.02.2019, in an inebriated stage, pressurized Mr.

Paban Mech, Assistant Commandant (Min.) officiating as Mess Secretary,

to open VIP room which is reserved for senior officers, for his three

civilian guests. He also raised hand to attack Mr. Paban Mech without any

provocation. He also misbehaved with him and abused him and used

derogatory words with regard to his caste.

4. It is further alleged that the petitioner, on intervening night of

19th & 20th February' 2019 at about 01:15 hours, snatched Government

vehicle from Mr. Rajveer Singh and drove the vehicle and went to

Administration Block of GC, CRPF and damaged Government property.

He then went towards residence of Commandant and other officers and

used abusive language against his senior officers. Another allegation

against the petitioner is that in the month of January & February 2019, he

misbehaved with other personnel of GC by using indecent and derogatory

language. Thus, a charge sheet has been issued to him vide memo, dated

23.05.2019, (Annexure P/2). The enquiry has been conducted and enquiry

report has been submitted by enquiry officer wherein two allegations have

been found proved while other two are not proved. The copy of enquiry

report has been forwarded to the petitioner vide memo, dated 23.06.2023,

(Annexure P/1). The charge sheet and the enquiry report are under

challenge in this writ petition.

5. This petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the

communication dated 15.11.2023 (Annexure P-1), whereby the opinion of

UPSC was forwarded to the petitioner for his comments. He has also

challenged the communication dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure P-2), whereby

the copy of enquiry report is forwarded to the petitioner.

6. Before adverting to the merits of this case, it is profitable to

mention here that learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection

to the challenge made by the petitioner to communication dated

15.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that since the UPSC is not

impleaded as party in the petition, the aforesaid challenge is liable to be

rejected. To this, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that

he would confine his challenge in this petition to the copy of enquiry

report and if he succeeds, the advice of UPSC would be inconsequential.

Thus, the instant writ petition is being decided only with regard to the

challenge made to the enquiry report.

7. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated

07.03.2019. The said order was sent to be served upon the petitioner

through DIG, Group Center, CRPF, Panihar District Gwalior. The order

was though delivered to the petitioner, however, it is alleged that he

refused to give acknowledgment of the same. Consequently, a Committee

consisting of four members was constituted to ensure the service of copy

of suspension order on the petitioner against his acknowledgment. It is

alleged that the Committee went to serve the copy of suspension order to

the petitioner at his residence on 08.03.2019. The petitioner asked them to

come to the premises of Gazetted Officer Mess. After receiving the order

in the presence of the members of the Committee, the petitioner again

refused to give acknowledgment. The order of suspension was accordingly

affixed on petitioner's residence to which also, it is alleged that the

petitioner caused resistance and misbehaved with the members of the

Committee.

8. Pursuant to the suspension order dated 07.03.2019, the

Headquarter of the petitioner was fixed at Group Center, CRPF, Bhopal.

However, the petitioner though left from Gwalior on 11.03.2019 but did

not report at GC, Bhopal. It is alleged that his mobile was switched off and

he did not report to GC Bhopal, despite specific direction. It is further

alleged that the petitioner departed from Gwalior on 14.03.2019 along

with his family but did not report at GC Bhopal. He was arrested by

Ghatigaon police party along with his vehicle on the ground that the

petitioner was running away without paying money, threatening and

abusing the salesman who asked for money for fuel filled in his vehicle

from Bhadouria Petrol Pump on 18.03.2019 at about 2:30 hours. On

medical examination, it was found that the petitioner was under influence

of alcohal. It is further alleged that the petitioner of his own reported at

GC Bhopal on 11.06.2019 and requested for permission to join his duty.

Thus, the petitioner was found to have been absent for a period of 94 days

from 10.03.2019 to 11.06.2019.

9. A charge-sheet dated 28.05.2020 (Annexure P-17) was served to

the petitioner, wherein two charges were leveled against him. The first

charge was that after having received the order of suspension issued by

competent Authority, he refused to furnish the acknowledgment of receipt

of the order and misbehaved with other officials and obstructed them in

execution of lawful order of the competent Authority. The second charge

was that he failed to comply with the lawful order of suspension and

directions of competent Authority and remained absent without any

intimation and permission of competent Authority to join at Headquarter

and did not report at his Headquarter of suspension w.e.f 10.03.2019 to

11.06.2019. The petitioner was thus charged of having failed to maintain

devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of government

servant.

10. After conducting the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer

has submitted the report on 29.06.2022, which has been communicated to

the petitioner vide communication dated 12.02.2022 (Annexure P-2). The

enquiry is stated to be pending at this stage because of the interim order

passed in this writ petition.

Analysis of facts & Law

11. It is the case of the petitioner that in January, 2016, he felt

uneasy and changes in his behaviour were observed. He visited Doctors at

VIMHANS Hospital at New Delhi and remained admitted their from

26.01.2016 to 05.02.2016. The Doctors diagnosed him with Bipolar

Disorder. The petitioner further submits that in January, 2019 when he was

posted at Group Center, CRPF, Panihar District Gwalior, he again felt

same symptoms as he felt in the year 2016. He was examined by the

Doctors at Group Center, Gwalior on 22.01.2019 and was referred for

further examination to Global Multispeciality Hospital Gwalior. The

Doctors at Global Multispeciality Hospital advised him 14 days rest.

12. The petitioner has further submitted that Mr. Rajnish Ahlawat,

Commandant was personally biased against him and in order to implicate

him falsely, ignoring his mental illness, a false and concocted criminal

case was lodged against him at the instance of Mr. Ahlawat in respect of

the incident occurred at the midnight of 19th-20th, February 2019. The

police at Police Station Panihar, acting under the influenced of Rajnish

Ahlawat, registered false case against him for the offences punishable

under Section 323, 294, 427 and 452 of IPC. Mr. Rajnish Ahlawat also

made a complaint against the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid

incident to CRPF Headquarters at New Delhi and recommended for

departmental action against him. The petitioner thus alleged that because

of the aforesaid incident and the concocted complaint made by Mr.

Ahlawat, he was placed under suspension.

13. The submission of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is

that the petitioner since is suffering from mental illness, is entitled to

protection under Section 20 of Right of Persons with Disabilities Act,

2016. He further submits that he has specifically raised this issue before

Enquiry Officer and also the Disciplinary Authority, however, nobody has

considered this aspect and ignoring his mental illness, enquiry report has

been submitted by the Enquiry Officer, wherein he has held the charges

proved against him. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further

submits that UPSC also failed to take into account the factum of his

mental illness and has accorded its approval to the action proposed against

the petitioner.

14. The learned Senior counsel placed heavy reliance on Apex

Court judgment rendered in the case of Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal &

another Vs. Union of India & others, reported in (2023) 2 SCC 209.

Referring to various paragraphs of this judgment, learned Senior counsel

submits that owing to his mental illness, it is unreasonable to expect the

petitioner to lead evidence and defend himself in enquiry.

15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently

opposed the writ petition. It is submitted by him that the petitioner has

failed to submit any valid medical document/certificate regarding his

medical illness/disability. Referring to the return filed by the respondents,

he submits that the petitioner submitted one prescription slip dated

24.02.2019 of his treatment at GC, CRPF, Greater Noida (U.P.), wherein

Doctor has mentioned that the petitioner reported with problems of

insomnia, loss of appetite and restlessness. He was referred to AIIMS,

Delhi. It is also submitted that one OPD slip of AIIMS, New Delhi was

also submitted by the petitioner claiming to have suffered from psychiatric

illness but the Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, AIIMS, New

Delhi after examining him, opined that "No active psychiatric

intervention" required at present and also no past history of psychiatric

illness was found. The opinion of AIIMS, New Delhi has been brought on

record as Annexure -R/5.

16. The learned counsel for respondents further submitted that the

petitioner's allegation that the authorities have not taken into account his

mental illness is incorrect inasmuch as the enquiry officer have duly taken

into account the petitioner's defense regarding his mental illness. The

Disciplinary Authority has yet to apply its mind and to take a final

decision. He also submits that UPSC has also considered this aspect in its

opinion. The learned counsel for the respondents thus submitted that the

ploy of mental illness is being used by petitioner to mislead the

department and this Court.

17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and

perused the record.

18. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy

reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Ravinder Kumar

(supra), I shall, therefore, first deal with the said judgment. In the case of

Ravinder Kumar, the Apex Court dealt with a case where there was a

conclusive medical opinion available on record with regard to mental

illness of the incumbent as is evident from observations made by Apex

Court in para 135 as under :

"135. Having regard to the complex nature of mental health disorders, any residual control that persons with mental disabilities have over their conduct merely diminishes the extent to which the disability contributed to the conduct, it does not eliminate it as a factor. The appellant has been undergoing treatment for mental health disorders for a long time, since 2009. He has been diagnosed with 40 to 70 percent of permanent disability by a government hospital. While all CRPF personnel may be subject to disciplinary proceedings on charges of misconduct, the appellant is more vulnerable to engage in behavior that can be classified as misconduct because of his mental disability. He is at a disproportionate disadvantage of being subjected to such proceedings in comparison to his able- bodied counterparts. The concept of indirect discrimination has been recognized by this Court in Ltd. Col. Nitisha and Ors. v. Union of India112, which is closely tied with the conception of substantive equality that pervades the international and Indian disability-rights regime. Thus, the disciplinary proceeding against the appellant is discriminatory and must be set aside."

19. Meaning thereby, the fact that the incumbent is suffering mental

illness was not in dispute. In the facts obtaining on record of that case, the

Apex Court interpreted various provisions of Right of persons with

Disabilities Act, 2016, (in short 'Act') particularly Section 20 of the Act.

20. Further, in para 125.4 of the judgment the Apex Court discussed

about two strands of arguments. Para 125.4 is reproduced herein for ready

reference :

"125.4. An issue that remains contentious is the examination of misconduct charges against persons with mental health disorders. There are two strands of argument. One argument is that mental disability often manifests as atypical behaviour that may fall within the ambit of misconduct. If such conduct is causally connected to the disability, then dismissal on grounds of misconduct is discrimination based on disability. This argument has been accepted by a few courts in the US. In the minority opinion in Stewart (supra), it was observed that making a distinction between the disability and the disability-related conduct is akin to making a distinction between a protected ground and conduct that is intertwined with the protected ground. On the other hand, it is argued that while mental health disorders may diminish the control a person has over their actions, it does not necessitate that the persons have completely lost their ability to comply with acceptable standards of workplace conduct. In the US, most courts have held that misconduct is not protected under ADA. In Stewart (supra), the majority opinion of the Canadian Supreme Court held that the employee with substance dependency retained some control to comply with the policy of making prior disclosure of dependency. Thus, non-compliance with standards of workplace conduct can rightfully lead to dismissals and would not constitute discrimination. South Africa adopts a middle ground in this debate. In Legal Aid South Africa (supra), the court observes that a two-pronged enquiry is required. It must first be considered based on the evidence whether the mental health disorder is so incapacitating that the person is not able to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct or is unable to conduct themselves in accordance with the required standard. Alternatively, if the evidence suggests that the person can appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct and act

accordingly, then their culpability stands diminished because of the mental health disorder, and sanctions should be imposed accordingly."

21. Further, the Apex Court dealt with considerations need to be

made in disciplinary matters vis-a-vis provision of Act are discussed in

para 131, 132, which reads as under :

"131. Similar considerations would govern our understanding of discrimination under the RPwD Act. A person with a disability is not required to prove that discrimination occurred solely on the basis that they had a disability. Disability needs to be one of the factors that led to the discriminatory act. Thus, in the present case, the appellant is only required to prove that disability was one of the factors that led to the institution of disciplinary proceedings against him on the charge of misconduct. A related enquiry then is to examine whether the conduct of the employee with a mental disability must be solely a consequence of their disability or it is sufficient to show that the disability was one of the factors for the conduct.

132. An interpretation that the conduct should solely be a result of an employee's mental disability would place many persons with mental disabilities outside the scope of human rights protection. It is possible that the appellant was able to exercise some agency over his actions. But the appellant was still a person who was experiencing disabling effects of his condition. Thus in any event his agency was diminished. The over- emphasis on the choice or agency of a person with a mental health disorder furthers the stigma against them. As Justice Gascon's minority opinion in Stewart (supra) states, it furthers the stereotype that persons with mental health conditions are "the authors of their own misfortune."

22. Now, Section 20 of the Act provides as under:

"20. Non-discrimination in employment -

(1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment:

Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.

(2) Every Government establishment shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees with disability.

(3) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability.

(4) No Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service:

Provided that, if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.

(5) The appropriate Government may frame policies for posting and transfer of employees with disabilities."

23. Thus, Section 20 confers protection to an employee suffering

'disability'. The term disability has been defined under Section 2(i) of the

Act to mean mental retardation and mental illness among others. Section

2(q) defines 'mental illness' as a mental disorder other than mental

retardation. Further, Section 2(i) defines 'mental retardation' as a condition

of incomplete development of a person which is especially characterized

by sub-normal intelligence. On the other hand, mental illness is classified

as a specified disability under the Act. The Schedule to the Act provides an

expansive and clearer definition of 'mental illness'.

24. Further, Section 2(s) defines the words "persons with disability"

as person with a long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory

impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and

effective participation in the society equally with others. Section 2(c)

defines barrier to mean any factor including communicational, cultural,

economic which hamper the full and effective participation of persons

with disabilities in society.

25. Thus, considering various provisions of the Act and the law laid

down by the Apex Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar (supra), it is

clear that for getting protection under Section 20 of the Act, there has to be

a conclusive finding that the petitioner is suffering disability. In the case of

Ravinder Kumar, as observed in para 135 by Apex Court, there was a

conclusive finding that the appellant was diagnosed with permanent

disability to the extent of 40% to 70% by the Government Hospital and he

had been undergoing treatment for mental disorders for a long time.

26. After having discussed the relevant provision of the Act and the

Apex Court observation made in Ravinder Kumar (Supra) case, the

documents placed on record by petitioner relating to his mental illness

needs to be considered. The first document filed as Annexure P-3 appears

to be a prescription dated 05.02.2016, wherein the petitioner is diagnosed

with Bipolar Affective Disorder. However, this document is not on a letter

head of any doctor/hospital and has not even signed by anyone. The

document filed as Annexure P-4 is dated 21.01.2019, wherein against the

petitioner's name certain medicines are prescribed but it does not certify

about any illness. The document filed at page 121 has diagnosed petitioner

with Broncitis. Similar is the case with documents filed at page No.122,

123, 124 & 125 where BPAD is not diagnosed. The documents filed as

Annexure P-9 to P-11 also does not certify petitioner's BPAD illness and

have been considered by enquiry officer. Annexure P-14 is again a

prescription of private doctor and does not mention about BPAD. The

medical certificate issued by Dr. Raj Kumar Singh of Bulandshahar also

cannot be accepted as it has been obtained on 19.11.2021 for treatment

given about 2 1/2 years back. Rest of the documents relates to referring the

petitioner to AIIMS, New Delhi by GC, Gwalior which have been

considered and discussed by enquiry officer.

27. On the other hand, in the case in hand, it has come on record

that the Department of Psychiatry, AIIMS, New Delhi, has not found

active Psychiatric issue with the petitioner. The enquiry officer has

discussed the entire material that has come on record during enquiry in

this regard at internal page 70 of the enquiry report (of W.P.No.3224/2024)

and has found that the petitioner is not suffering any mental illness. The

UPSC has also discussed this aspect in its opinion in para 4.11. The report

of enquiry officer and the opinion of UPSC has been forwarded to the

petitioner for his response and the matter is pending at this stage. Thus,

there is no final decision taken yet by the Disciplinary Authority. The

petitioner still has an opportunity to demonstrate before the Disciplinary

Authority about his mental illness. However, since there is no conclusive

medical opinion available on record stating that the petitioner is suffering

mental illness, the case of Ravinder Kumar (supra) is distinguishable.

28. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance

upon the judgment of Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of

Bhavya Nain Vs. High Court of Delhi, reported in (2020) 2 SCT 590.

However, facts of this case are entirely different, wherein the Division

Bench has considered as to whether the disability of Bipolar Affective

Disorder is permanent disease or not. Thus, the issue being different, the

aforesaid judgment of Delhi High Court is of no help to the petitioner.

29. The scope of interference by High Court in exercise of powers

of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India is well

defined. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India & another Vs.

Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in (2006) SCC 28 held as under :

"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special

Director and another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another, AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001 (10) SCC 639, State of U.P. Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another, AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.

14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.

15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet."

30. In view of the discussion made above, the petitioner has failed

to establish in the enquiry that he is suffering mental illness and is entitled

to get protection under Section 20 of the Act. The contention of the

petitioner that enquiry officer has not considered his defense of mental

illness is also found to be incorrect in view of specific finding recorded in

this regard in the enquiry report. No interference thus can be made in the

instant writ petition.

31. Since, the Disciplinary Authority has yet to apply its mind and

take a final decision, the petition is, therefore, disposed of with the

observation that the Disciplinary Authority while finalizing the matter

shall consider the defense of the petitioner regarding his mental illness

with due regard to various medical prescriptions/reports. If needed, the