Apex Court says initiation of disciplinary proceedings against persons with mental disabilities is facet of indirect discrimination

Read Judgment: Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Another vs. Union of India & Others

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, December 20,2021: While stating that initiation of disciplinary proceedings against persons with mental disabilities is a facet of indirect discrimination, the Supreme Court has ruled that person with a disability is entitled to protection under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (RPwD Act) as long as the disability was one of the factors for the discriminatory act. 

Therefore, setting aside the disciplinary proceedings against Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal (Appellant) relating to the first enquiry, a Larger Bench of Justice Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Vikram Nath held the appellant to be 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 observation came in reference to a disciplinary proceeding initiated against an officer of the Central Reserve Police Force who had been diagnosed with 40 to 70 percent mental disability. 

Going by the background of the case, the Appellant had joined the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in November 2001. While serving in Ajmer, on April 18, 2010, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP) lodged a complaint against him alleging that the appellant had stated that he was obsessed with either killing or being killed and made a threat that he could shoot. This resulted in an enquiry against the appellant. Accordingly, six charges were framed against him highlighting his absence from morning marker, use of unparliamentary language, appearance in media without prior approval of the Department, not giving parade report, trying to intentionally cause an accident, and assaulting Deputy Commandant. 

Pursuant to the allegations, appellant urged that he was suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder and major depression. When he was referred to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital in Delhi, he was categorized as permanently disabled, having 40 to 70% disability. Accordingly, the hospital declared the appellant unfit for duty. 

After considering the submissions, the Apex Court said that mental disability of a person need not be the sole cause of the misconduct that led to the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. 

Any residual control that persons with mental disabilities have over their conduct merely diminishes the extent to which the disability contributed to the conduct, and therefore, the mental disability impairs the ability of persons to comply with workplace standards in comparison to their able-bodied counterparts, added the Court. 

Highlighting that such persons suffer a disproportionate disadvantage due to the impairment and are more likely to be subjected to disciplinary proceedings, the Apex Court observed that the present case involves a complex question of balancing right of persons with mental disabilities against discrimination in the course of employment and the interest of the CRPF in ensuring a safe working environment and maintaining a combat force that can undertake security operations. 

While quoting Tarunabh Khaitan’s Beyond Reasonableness – A Rigorous Standard of Review for Article 15 Infringement [50(2) Journal of the Indian Law Institute 177-208 (2008)], the Larger Bench said that the government’s right to exempt an establishment from the provisions of Section 20 of RPwD Act which deals with employment discrimination, is not absolute. 

Therefore, in the light of Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act and the general guarantee of reasonable accommodation that accrues to persons with disabilities, the Larger Bench opined that the appellant is entitled to be reassigned to a suitable post having the same pay scale and benefits. 

The CRPF may choose to assign him a post taking into consideration his current mental health condition, added the Bench.

The Top Court clarified that the suitability of the post is to examined based on an individualized assessment of the reasonable accommodation that the appellant needs, and the authorities can ensure that the post to which the appellant is accommodated does not entail handling or control over firearms or equipment which can pose a danger to himself or to others in or around the workplace. 

“The appellant has been undergoing treatment for mental health disorders for a long time, since 2009. He has been diagnosed with 40 to 70 percent of permanent disability by a government hospital. While all CRPF personnel may be subject to disciplinary proceedings on charges of misconduct, the appellant is more vulnerable to engage in behavior that can be classified as misconduct because of his mental disability. He is at a disproportionate disadvantage of being subjected to such proceedings in comparison to his able-bodied counterparts”, observed the Court.  

The Larger Bench pointed out that in the present case, the appellant is only required to prove that disability was one of the factors that led to the institution of disciplinary proceedings against him on the charge of misconduct. 

A related enquiry then is to examine whether the conduct of the employee with a mental disability must be solely a consequence of their disability or it is sufficient to show that the disability was one of the factors for the conduct, added the Bench.

The Apex Court therefore concluded that the duty of providing reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities is sacrosanct, and all possible alternatives must be considered before ordering dismissal from service.