2008 (1) TMI 955 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Mental disability of the respondent affecting her employment status and the power of the Commissioner to set aside the dismissal order.

The judgment addresses the case where the respondent, a teacher, faced dismissal due to mental disability following a divorce in 1999. The respondent, being mentally disabled, did not participate in the inquiry proceedings leading to her dismissal. Subsequently, the Commissioner for Physically Handicapped persons set aside the dismissal order and issued interim directions. The primary issue revolves around whether the Commissioner has the authority to overturn the dismissal order in such circumstances.

The Court acknowledges the mental disability of the respondent and the potential implications on her entitlement to benefits under The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Etc.) Act, 1995, specifically Section 47. This section prohibits establishments from dismissing or reducing the rank of an employee who acquires a disability during service, ensuring non-discrimination in government employment. The Act's provisions are crucial in determining the respondent's rights in light of her mental disability.

The petitioner argues that the dismissal was not due to mental disability, and reinstating the respondent could lead to challenges such as backwages and other directions. Conversely, the respondent's counsel presents a medical certificate indicating a 40 to 70% mental disability, suggesting the respondent may be capable of minor manual work if assigned appropriately.

Given the respondent's mental disability during the disciplinary proceedings, a pragmatic approach is deemed necessary. The Court emphasizes the importance of a doctor's assessment to determine suitable duties for the respondent. While the final decision on the Commissioner's power is pending, the Court temporarily stays backwages but orders the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with regular salary and assign suitable duties based on a government doctor's evaluation.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the complexities surrounding employment decisions involving mental disabilities and underscores the need for a balanced approach to uphold the rights of individuals with disabilities while considering practical implications for both parties involved.