2013 (7) TMI 1092 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner u/s 62 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
2. Applicability of Section 47 of the Act regarding non-discrimination in Government employment.
3. Validity of the dismissal order of the Appellant.
4. Entitlement to back wages and reinstatement.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner u/s 62 of the Act:
The main question was whether the Commissioner u/s 62 of the Act can examine the legality of the dismissal of a disabled person. The Supreme Court held that the Commissioner is empowered to look into complaints regarding the deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities and non-implementation of laws, rules, and guidelines. The Commissioner can suo motu inquire into the matter and take necessary steps to restore the rights of disabled persons.

2. Applicability of Section 47 of the Act:
Section 47(1) of the Act prohibits the dismissal or reduction in rank of an employee who acquires a disability during service. The Appellant, who was dismissed during her mental disability, was entitled to the benefits under this section. The Commissioner had declared the dismissal void, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the High Court should not have interfered with the Commissioner's order.

3. Validity of the Dismissal Order:
The Appellant was dismissed from service without a proper departmental inquiry, violating the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court noted that no inquiry officer was appointed, and no evidence was relied upon to substantiate the charges against the Appellant. The dismissal was thus deemed illegal and void.

4. Entitlement to Back Wages and Reinstatement:
The Appellant was not entitled to wages for the period she remained absent (1360 days) or for the delay in approaching the Commissioner. However, the Supreme Court directed the Respondent to reinstate the Appellant immediately and pay her regular salary from 1.2.2008, as per the interim order of the High Court. The Respondent was also directed to pay arrears of salary from 1.2.2008 within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be applicable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, and directed the reinstatement of the Appellant with regular salary and arrears from 1.2.2008. There was no order as to costs.