Cannot apply a straight-jacket formula to deal with persons ailing from Paranoid Schizophrenia: Delhi HC

The constable had joined the Force in September 1996 and was subsequently diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia and was receiving continuous treatment for the same. In 2009, a chargesheet was filed against him for threatening to open fire at the Battalion campus at Rail Bhavan for killing himself if he was not immediately posted at the headquarters. It was also alleged that he was often missing from duty without informing others and for showing disobedience and neglecting orders from his seniors. In 2010, the authorities awarded him with compulsory retirement.

Thereafter he moved the HC and in March 2013, the HC directed his reinstatement with a direction to the disciplinary authority to take a fresh view in the matter and make appropriate directions “taking into consideration all circumstances including his medical condition”. The constable was reinstated without a medical exam,  however subsequently a fresh inquiry was conducted and he was again compulsorily retired in 2014.

Perusing the facts of the case, the HC observed that although the constable is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia,  he had however been declared asymptomatic and fit to work without arms and was diligently performing his services which remain undisputed by the respondent Force.

The HC was of the view that if a chance is given, he would be able to discharge his duties, “albeit of course with some assistance and guidance” from the respondents. Observing that Paranoid Schizophrenia is a mental disease relating to a particular pattern of behaviour resulting in hallucinations, delusions or fears the court noted that those suffering from the illness require “constant guidance, assistance, medication and treatment” as they may act erratically and their behaviour may be fluctuating.

The court was of the view that people suffering from the illness are “by and large, neither harmful to the people at large nor a threat to the society but may in a fit of rage, be a danger for some time”.  But the same depends upon the conditions, situations and surroundings prevalent and most of all the “gravity of the illness involved and may not, by and large, be present in all cases”.

The HC held that the charge sheet did not detail any other instances attributable to his mental condition and observed that he is “neither harmful nor is a threat”.  The HC further held that the fresh inquiry was conducted in a very rudimentary manner especially since they were aware of his condition. It was observed that the respondents had halfheartedly complied with the earlier directions of the HC as they failed to take the most relevant factor, i.e. mental condition of the petitioner into consideration.

Holding that there wasn’t proper application of mind while passing the orders the HC held, “…the respondents should have taken the mental condition of petitioner into consideration and could have given the benefit of doubt to impose a punishment of minor penalty upon him rather than sticking onto the same position as what was before passing of order dated 21.03.2013… At the end of the day, the petitioner had not caused any harm or injury or any irreparable damage or loss or caused any such wrong which cannot be undone or pardoned or condoned, however, was merely absenting from duty.”

The HC additionally held that the respondents could not have applied a “straight jacket formula” as the situations of persons suffering from the illness differs from person to person and from stage to stage. Allowing the constable’s plea the HC directed the respondents to reinstate him with 50% back wages with effect from September 2, 2014 within four weeks from the HC’s order. The Court however made it clear that if in future, a medical exam proves that he is not suffering from the illness, then the respondents will be free to act accordingly after passing reasoned orders.