Mental illness not stigma: Delhi High Court quashes disciplinary action against CRPF man

The court referred to Section 29 (promotion of mental health and preventive programmes) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and said the provision “imposes a statutory obligation upon authorities to ensure that persons with mental illness are not subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment”.

Case

The petitioner sought quashing and setting aside the disciplinary action taken against him in March 2020. He claimed his next increment was halted for five years with cumulative effect.

The petitioner, while seeking the restoration of his increment, also sought a direction for considering the period spent from May 2019 till date of reporting as a period not spent on duty, and in lieu of that, consider the aforesaid period as a period spent on duty.

In May 2019, taking action against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority ordered the penalty of compulsory retirement with a 30 per cent reduction in pension and gratuity in accordance with Rule 40(1) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972.

The man was accused of refusing to obey the orders of the head office and had failed to follow the CRPF rules and guidelines. As a result, he was reportedly punished by being made to stand under the sun before the office for almost four hours.

In the plea, the man also sought a direction to the respondents to make available all the medical records of the medical board to him and implement the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, in the Force.

Arguments

For the petitioner, advocates Manoj V George, Shilpa Liza George and Brinda Bhattiprolu argued that the the present case warrants consideration beyond the disciplinary prism, as the petitioner was suffering from “mental illness” at the relevant time, which was duly certified by competent medical authorities.

They argued rendering the disciplinary action disproportionate, insensitive, and legally was therefore unsustainable.

The petitioner, the lawyers argued, was diagnosed with Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD), first at a civil hospital in Jaipur and later confirmed by PGIMER, Chandigarh.

“The petitioner was not a perpetrator of misconduct but rather a victim of mental health vulnerabilities and is therefore entitled to the protection and reasonable accommodation under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016,” they added.

They further argued that the petitioner’s repeated requests for copies of his medical records and documents about treatment were arbitrarily denied, contrary to Section 25 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, thereby infringing his statutory right to access his own medical records.

For the state, advocate Raj Kumar submitted that the present plea was not maintainable before the court for want of territorial jurisdiction.

“It was submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Rajasthan, and is presently posted in Jammu & Kashmir, and therefore, no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court,” the state argued.

The petitioner was afforded full opportunity to defend himself, including the supply of relevant documents, opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and opportunity to submit written representation, Kumar added.

Key findings

• 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.
• Denial of medical records to the petitioner 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.
• 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.

Decision

The court held that since the entire disciplinary process against the petitioner occurred wholly within the non-exemption (2018-2020) period, the rights and safeguards contained in Section 20 (non-discrimination in employment) of the RPwD Act must govern the present case.

“The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner here were conducted as if the provisions of the RPwD Act do not apply to him, without even acknowledging or accommodating his mental illness,” the court added.

The court observed that no steps were taken to modify duties, provide medical support, or tailor the inquiry 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.

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

“The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are set aside. The petitioner is also entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act in the event he is found unsuitable for his current employment duty,” the court held.

All consequential benefits, including arrears, shall be computed and disbursed to the petitioner after adjusting sums already paid, within 8 weeks from the pronouncement of this judgment. A certified copy of this order is to be made available to the competent authority, the court directed on December 3.