ANIL KUMAR MAHAJAN versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 373 · Decided: 02-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 8 S.C.R. 373 
ANIL KUMAR MAHAJAN 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF 
PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, 
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NEW 
DELHI AND OTHERS 
B 
(Civil Appeal No. 4944 of 2013) 
JULY 2, 2013 
[G.5. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
C 
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection 
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - s.2(i) ands. 47 
and its first and second proviso -
Officer in Indian 
Administrative Service, declared insane in Departmental 
D 
inquiry and compulsorily retired, after 30 years of service -
Administrative Tribunal dismissed the application of the 
officer- High Court granted liberty to the counsel of the officer 
to withdraw the petition with liberty to file the same through 
next friend as the officer was insane - Held: High Court should 
E 
not have allowed the counsel to withdraw the petition - The 
Court should have referred the matter to Medical Board, and 
if the officer was found to be insane, the Court should have 
decided the matt~r on merit by appointing an advocate as 
amicus curiae - Even if, it is presumed that the officer was 
F 
insane, he could not have been removed from service in view 
of s. 47, as insanity is one of the disabilities uls. 2(i) - The 
respondents are directed to treat the officer continued in 
service till the date of his superannuation - He is entitled to 
full salary minus subsistence allowance and also full retiral 
G 
benefits counting total period of service - Service Law. 
The appellant joint Indian Administrative Service in 
the year 1977. He was placed under suspension in the 
year 1988. He had to move administrative Tribunal for 
373 
H 
374 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A promotion and posting. Departmental inquiry was 
initiated against him, alleging that he was mentally sick. 
Allegations of indiscipline, irresponsibility and 
misbehaviour were also made. After 11 years of inquiry, 
finding was given that the appellant was insane and 
B order of compulsory retirement was passed. The order 
was challenged by the appellant before Administrative 
Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application. The 
appellant then preferred writ petition. The High Court, on 
the basis of submission of the counsel for the appellant 
c that he sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file 
an appropriate petition through the next friend, as the 
respondents had given a finding that the appellant was 
insane, dismissed the petition as withdrawn. 
Appellant challenged the order of the High Court on 
D the ground that High Court did not decide the question 
as to whether the appellant was insane, and if he was 
insane, the Court could not have allowed the counsel to 
withdraw the petition on the basis of instructions from an 
insane person. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is not the case of the respondents that 
, the appellant was insane and in spite of that he was 
F appointed as an IAS Officer in 1977. Therefore, even if it 
is presumed that the appellant became insane, as held 
by the Inquiry Officer, mental illness being one of the 
disabilities under Section 2(i) of Persons with Disabilities 
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full 
Participation) Act, 1995, u/s. 47 of the Act, it was not open 
G to the respondents to dispense with, or reduce in rank 
of the appellant, who acquired a disability during his 
service. If the appellant, after acquiring disability was not 
suitable for the post he was holding, should have been 
shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and 
H service benefits. Further, if it was not possible to adjust 
ANIL KUMAR MAHAJAN v. UNION OF INDIA THR. SEC., 375 
MINISTRY OF PERS., 
the appellant against any post, the respondents ought to 
A 
have kept the appellant on a supernumerary post until a 
suitable post was available or, until the appellant attained 
the age of superannuation whichever was earlier. [Para 
18] [383-G-H; 384-A-B] 
2. It was not open to the authorities to dispense with 
B 
the service of the appellant or to compulsorily retire him 
from service. The High Court also failed to notice the 
relevant fact and without going into the merit, allowed the 
counsel to withdraw the writ petition merely on the basis 
C 
of the finding of Inquiry Officer. The High Court ought to 
have referred the matter to a Medical Board to find out 
whether the appellant was insane and if so found, in that 
case 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.