Compulsory Retirement of RPSF Constable set aside, Everyone with Paranoid Schizophrenia Has to Be Dealt with Differently: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court ruled that as each doctor gives a different medication to a different patient with a distinct sickness, so too must each person suffering from the illness be treated differently. This was seen in the case of BABU KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR (W.P.(C) 13605/2019) and the case was presided over by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Petitioner received a charge sheet in 2009 for threatening to murder himself or start a gunfight on the Rail Bhavan campus of the battalion if he was not given a headquarter posting right away. Additionally, it was said that he routinely disregarded orders from superiors and skipped out on his duties without giving any notice. He received the penalty of Compulsory Retirement in 2010. In 2013, the high court ordered the constable’s reinstatement and stipulated that the disciplinary body could review the situation with a fresh perspective while taking his health into account. Despite Khan’s reinstatement without a medical check, a new investigation was launched against him, and in 2014, he was once more forced into retirement. Both the appellate court and the revisional court upheld the judgment.
JUDGEMENT
According to the court, the respondents have never claimed that the petitioner has a severe illness that is or could become degenerative or that he is unable to carry out his tasks with the necessary care and precaution.
The court observed that other than the incidences listed in the charge sheet from 2009, there is no reference to any other incidents linked to the petitioner’s alleged mental condition. “The petitioner poses neither a threat nor a risk to others. He would or could have acted more seriously if there had ever been a threat from him, both then and moving forward. That is untrue “It was added.
The court ordered the respondents to reinstate the petition with 50 percent of back earnings as of September 02, 2014, after overturning the decision to make compulsory retirement.
The court made it clear that the respondent “will be allowed to proceed and act accordingly after granting appropriate reasoned direction(s)/order(s) in furtherance thereof” if at any point in the future his medical examination indicates otherwise.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHINAV SHUKLA.