Mental Illness Can’t Be Treated As Stigma Or Character Flaw: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Disciplinary Proceedings Against CRPF Officer

While setting aside the disciplinary proceedings against a CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) Officer, the Delhi High Court said that mental illness cannot be treated as stigma or character flaw.

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition seeking setting aside of the Order with respect to the “Stoppage of next increment for a period of five years with cumulative effect” and in lieu of that restore the next increment, and implementation of the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 in the Force.

A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla emphasised, “Mental illness cannot be treated as a stigma, a character flaw, or a disciplinary infraction. The enactment of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the RPwD Act reflects the legislative intent to ensure that persons with mental illness are not marginalised, discriminated against or subjected to institutional responses that aggravate their condition. Section 29 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 imposes a statutory obligation upon authorities to ensure that persons with mental illness are not subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. Section 25 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, thereof, confers a legal right upon every person with mental illness to access his medical records.”

The Bench added that the denial of medical records during the disciplinary process, despite specific request, assumes significance, not merely as a procedural lapse, but as a violation of a statutory right intrinsic to informed defence, dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Advocate Manoj V George appeared for the Petitioner, while CGSC Raj Kumar appeared for the Respondents.

Case Background

In 2018, the Petitioner while on attachment with the 122 Battalion Signal Platoon (5 Signal Battalion CRPF) was sent for the Annual Range Classification Firing at the Ferozpur-Jhirka Firing Range for communication duties. The Respondent alleged absence of the Petitioner from the designated duty area and carriage of radio equipment without permission. It was also alleged that the Petitioner had spent time at the Outpost of 27 Battalion and that, after returning to the Butt Range, he was behaving with indiscipline and insubordination with the Range Officer. The Petitioner was also accused of failing to carry two sets of 1/5 W radio sets to the firing range as a result of which he was punished by being made to stand under the sun before the Office for a period of almost four hours. Consequently, the Petitioner submitted a written complaint and in response to the same, the Commandant 122 Battalion issued a warning letter stating that the Petitioner had refused to obey the orders of the Head of Office and had failed to follow CRPF Rules and Guidelines.

Following such incident, a behaviour report was also recorded and thereafter, the Petitioner was directed to report to the Commandant 05 Signal Battalion, CRPF, Chandigarh. Subsequently, while the Petitioner was on duty at Chandigarh, an incident occurred between him and a superior officer, whereby it was alleged that the Petitioner had disobeyed the orders. Resultantly, a Memorandum of Charge was issued against him, initiating disciplinary proceedings. The Petitioner underwent medical evaluation at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College, Jaipur, where he was diagnosed with behavioural changes i.e., Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD). Being aggrieved by the penalty imposed, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, observed, “Importantly, the approach to persons with mental illness in employment has undergone a paradigm shift. The RPwD Act mandates a framework of substantive equality and non-discrimination. Section 20 of the RPwD Act prohibits discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, and sub-section (4) explicitly provides that an employee who acquires a disability during service shall not be dispensed with; instead, the employer must shift such employee to a suitable post with the same pay scale or create a supernumerary post. This statutory protection is directly applicable in cases such as the present petitioner.”

The Court said that the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner were conducted as if the provisions of RPwD Act are not applicable to him, without even acknowledging or accommodating his mental illness.

“No steps were taken to modify duties, provide medical support, or tailor the enquiry to the petitioner’s cognitive and functional limitations. Applying the above-mentioned principle, the failure to provide reasonable accommodation in itself constitutes discrimination, thereby tainting the disciplinary proceedings”, it noted.

The Court was of the view that the Petitioner’s alleged misconduct is directly consistent with symptoms of OCPD and depression and the disciplinary authority neither conducted a psychiatric assessment of fitness to face enquiry nor considered his mental illness as a mitigating or explanatory factor.

“The initiation of disciplinary proceedings without considering the disability of the petitioner, and the conduct of the inquiry without provision of reasonable accommodation, constitute “indirect discrimination.” The disciplinary process proceeded in a mechanical manner, ignoring the petitioner’s mental condition, medical recommendations and statutory protections”, it added.

The Court elucidated that the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation to a person with mental illness is a mandatory requirement under the RPwD Act, and forms an essential component of quality.

“Where the disability has a nexus with the alleged act of misconduct, the employer must consider the fact of disability while initiating disciplinary proceedings. The inquiry would be vitiated otherwise as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal(supra)”, it further said.

The Court also noted that access to one’s mental health records is a statutory right under Section 25 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and denial of access to such crucial records vitiate fairness.

“In view of the above binding dicta, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, undertaken without reasonable accommodation; without consideration of the nexus between the disability and the alleged misconduct; without regarding the statutory rights to access medical records, are vitiated as discriminatory, unfair, and contrary to the RPwD Act, the Mental Healthcare Act, and Article 21 of the Constitution”, it observed.

Conclusion

Moreover, the Court remarked that even assuming if the disciplinary process were valid, the penalty imposed by the Revisional Authority i.e. “stoppage of next increment for five years with cumulative effect” invites scrutiny on the touchstone of statutory limits governing penalties.

“The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, as applicable to the CRPF, enumerate “withholding of increments of pay” as a penalty but do not contemplate withholding with cumulative effect, nor for a period extending to five years. Similarly, Rules 27 and 72 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 do not authorise imposition of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect beyond one year. A penalty not expressly authorised by the rules is impermissible in law”, it enunciated.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the Petitioner shall be entitled to full restoration of service benefits as if the penalty had not intervened.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the disciplinary proceedings.

Cause Title- Chhattar Singh v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10782-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Manoj V George, Shilpa Liza George, and Brinda Bhattiprolu.

Respondents: CGSC Raj Kumar

Click here to read/download the Judgment