LexBHAGWAN DASS & ANR. versus PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 32
BHAGWAN DASS & ANR.
v.
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
(C.A. No. 8 of 2008)
JANUARY 4, 2008
(G.P. MATHUR AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.)
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995; S.47:
C
Disabilities - Appellant-Employee completely lost vision
of his eyes while in service -Absence from duty- Show Cause
Notice - Not aware of his rights under the Act, and under stress
he sought retirement from service requesting employment for
his wife in his place - Employer-respondent retired him from
D service -
Correctness of -
Held: Respondent erred in
construing appellant's letter as a request for voluntary
retirement - Supreme Court strongly deprecated action of
respondent in denying the appellant his legal rights frustrating
mandate of law on incorrect and groundless plea that
E appellant himself had asked for retirement.
Disabled employee - Right of, as mandated by law -
Legal duties of authorities - Held: Authorities duty-bound to
follow the law and to promote the object of legislative mandate
- In the facts and under the circumstances of the case,
F termination of services of the appellant was bad and illegal -
Respondent directed to reinstate the appellant in service with
all consequential benefits - Civil Service Rules - Rr.5-11 -
Punjab State Electricity Board Employees Punishment and
Appeal Regulations, 1971 - R.8 -Interpretation of Statutes.
G
Appellant-employee lost vision of his both eyes while
in service of respondent-Punjab State Electricity Board.
Allegedly, he remained absent from duty without any
sanctioned leave for certain period. He was directed by
the authorities to resume duties but he failed to report for
H
32
-
BHAGWAN DASS & ANR. v. PUNJAB STATE
33
ELECTRICITY BOARD
duty. Later, a charge sheet was issued initiating A
disciplinary proceedings against him for gross
misconduct under Regulation 8 of the Punjab State
·"
Electricity Board Employees Punishment & Appeal
Regulation 1971. The appellant vide his letter dated July
17, 1996, while explaining his absence from duty, had B
requested the Board to retire him from service and, in his
place, provide employment to his wife. But the Board,
instead of considering his request, retired him from
service in terms of Rule5.11 of the Civil Services Rules.
The appellant then filed an affidavit stating that he had no c
knowledge about the protection available to him in terms
of the provisions of the Act and so he offered for
retirement. The affidavit did not evoke any response from
the authorities. The disabled employee then approached
the High Court by filing a Civil Writ Petition seeking relief D
in terms of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full
Participation Act, 1995. The Petition was dismissed by the
High Court. Hence the present .appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: 1.1. When the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Act, 1995 came into force the appellant was in service and
his contract of employment with the Board was
subsisting. His case was, therefore, squarely covered by F
the provisions of the Act. (Para - 7) (38-D, E)
1.2 The only material on the basis of which the
officers of the Board took the stand that the appellant had
himself made a request for retirement on medical grounds G
was his letter dated July 17, 1996. The letter was written
when a charge sheet was issued to him and in the letter
he was trying to explain his absence from duty. In this
letter he requested to be retired but at the same time asked
that his wife should be given a suitable job in his place. H
34
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 1 S.C.R.
A Thus, the letter should not be read as an offer for voluntary
.,
retirement. {Para - 18) (42-C, D)
1.3 Appellant No.1 had completely lost his vision and
he was not aware of any protection that the law afforded
him and apparently believed that the blindness would
8 cause him to lose his job, the source of livelihood of his
family. The enormous mental pressure under which he
would have been at that time is not difficult to imagine. In
those circumstances it was the duty of the superior
officers to explain to him the correct legal position and to
C tell him about his legal rights. Instead of doing that they
threw him out of service by picking up a sentence from
his lettExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.