Mere Assertion Of Mental Stress, Without Proof & Link To Misconduct, Cannot Vitiate Disciplinary Proceedings: Delhi High Court Upholds CISF Constable’s Removal
The Court held that Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal does not help a petitioner who produced no medical report, diagnosis or treatment record for his alleged alcohol dependency; finds removal proportionate in view of six proved charges and earlier punishments.
The Delhi High Court has held that a bare plea of mental stress cannot vitiate disciplinary proceedings unless the delinquent produces material establishing the nature of the condition and its relevance to the misconduct. It upheld the removal from service of a CISF constable who claimed alcohol dependency and depression arising from his family circumstances.
The Court held that Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. In Civil Appeal No.6924 of 2021 does not by itself invalidate the proceedings. It noted that the petitioner placed no medical report, diagnosis or treatment record before the authorities or the Court, and that his annual fitness records showed only an orthopaedic classification. It also found no perversity in the findings and no disproportion in the penalty.
A Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Amit Sharma observed, “The mere assertion that the petitioner was experiencing mental stress on account of his family circumstances cannot, in the absence of material establishing the nature of the alleged condition and its relevance to the misconduct in question, be treated as sufficient to invalidate the disciplinary proceedings. The judgment in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal requires the rights of persons with mental disabilities to be examined in the context of the applicable statutory provisions and the circumstances of the individual case. The said judgement particularly in para 97 also held that a person with mental disability is entitled to the protection of rights under the RPWD Act as long as they meet the definitional criteria of what constitutes a person with disability under section 2(s) of the said Act…”.
“…The mental disability need not necessarily be the sole cause of the misconduct; however, the factual circumstances must be examined to determine whether the relevant statutory protections are attracted. In the present case, the petitioner has not demonstrated, on the material placed before this Court, the existence of circumstances which would establish that the departmental authorities acted in breach of any applicable statutory obligation. Consequently, the aforesaid judgment, by itself, does not furnish sufficient ground to hold that the disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated. The plea, as advanced, therefore, does not warrant interference with the impugned orders”, it noted further.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, an Ex-Constable/GD of CISF Unit CGBS, New Delhi, under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001.
Six charges were framed, which related to a scuffle with a Delhi Police PCR officer on June 27, 2020 after allegedly being intoxicated, reporting for duty on July 29, 2020 under the influence of alcohol, abusing and assaulting a Sub-Inspector, threatening a colleague, refusing to undergo a COVID-19 test needed for a blood examination, and past punishments for similar conduct. The Enquiry Officer examined 16 prosecution witnesses and one Court witness.
On October 27, 2020, the Disciplinary Authority held all six charges proved and imposed the penalty of removal from service. The Deputy Inspector General rejected the appeal on January 4, 2021, and the Inspector General rejected the revision on May 25, 2021 under Rule 54. The petitioner then filed a writ petition seeking exoneration and reinstatement with consequential benefits.
The petitioner argued that the findings rested on hearsay with no independent witness, that his alcohol dependency and depression were ignored, and that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 vitiated the proceedings. The Union submitted that no evidence of illness was placed during the enquiry, appeal or revision, and that the plea was an afterthought.
The Court observed that the record disclosed no medical report, diagnosis or treatment record for alcohol dependency. It noted that a change in his medical category was due to a fractured radius and that no mental illness was recorded. It also held that he had not shown his capacity to participate in the enquiry was impaired, or that any substantiated plea was raised before the Enquiry Officer. Relying on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. (1995), it held that judicial review looks at the manner of decision-making and does not re-appreciate evidence. It held that the petitioner had shown no procedural illegality, breach of natural justice or perversity, and that the penalty did not shock the conscience of the Court.
Cause Title: Amit Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9901-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate P. Sureshan.
Respondent: Jagdish Chandra, CGSC with Advocates Lakshay Kumar and Maanya Saxena, and Assistant Commandant Kiran Ji Pandit.