GEETABEN RATILAL PATEL versus DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER

Citation: [2013] 17 S.C.R. 900 · Decided: 02-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2013] 17 S.C.R. 900 
GEETABEN RATILAL PATEL 
v. 
DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER 
(Ciyil Appeal No. 9324 of 2012) 
JULY 2, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU 
JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection 
of Rights and Full Pwticipation) Act, 1995 - s.47 rlw s.62 -
Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to look into the legality of 
.[fle order of dismissal from service of a disabled person -
Dismissal of appellant-teacher in 2004 .:._ Challenged before 
D the Commissioner uls. 62 of the Act in 2007 -
The _ 
Commissioner held that as the appellant was suffering from 
40 to 70 % mental disability at the time of dismissal, the order 
of dismissal was void - Order set aside by High Court - On 
appeal, held: If it comes to the notice of the Commissioner 
E that a person with disability has been deprived of his rights 
or that the authorities have flouted any law, rule, guideline, 
instruction, etc. issued by the appropriate Government or 
local authorities, the Commissioner is required to take up the 
matter with the appropriate authority t6 ensure restoration of 
F rights of such disabled person and/or to implement the Jaw, 
rule, guideline, instruction if not followed - In the instant case, 
appellant-teacher was dismissed from service, but the order 
of dismissal was passed during her mental disability in 
violation of s.47(1) - In this background, the Commissioner 
G having declared the order of dismissal as void, it was not open 
to the High Court to interfere with such order and to restore 
the illegal order of dismissal -
The dismissal order also 
violated rules of natural justice -
Direc&ion given to 
H 
900 
GEETABEN RATILAL PATEL v. DISTRICT PRIMARY EDU. 901 
OFFICER 
respondent-authority to reinstate the appellant immediately -
A 
• 
However, in the peculiar fact-situation, appellant granted 
arrears of salary w.e.f. 1-2-2008- Respondent-authority may 
get opinion of Government Doctor to determine the duty to 
be assigned to the appellant - In case the appellant is not in 
a position to perform normal duty because of her mental B 
condition, competent authority to apply proviso to s.47(1) -
Primary Education Act - s.24 - Gujarat Panchayat Services 
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1997. 
The appellant was a primary school teacher. She was 
dismissed from service by the respondent under Section C 
24 of the Primary Education Act read with Gujarat 
Panchayat Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1997 
on the ground of carelessness towards duty, absence 
from duty, irregularity, breach of orders of the higher 
. authorities and having badly affected the future of the D 
students. The appellant filed application before the 
Commissioner under Section 62 of the Persons with 
·Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and 
Full Participation) Act, 1995 pleading that the order of 
dismis_sal was passed while she was suffering from E 
mental illness and thus there was violation of Section 
47(1) of the Act, and accordingly the appellant prayed for 
her reinstatement _with full back-wages. 
The Commissioner held that as the appellant was 
F 
suffering from 40 to 70 per cent mental disability at the . 
time of dismissal, the order of dismissal was void and 
further that if the appellant was not in a position to work 
in the large educatio_nal intel'est of the students, then an 
appropriate post should be created for her and her G 
appointment to that post be made as per Section 47 of 
the Act. The order passed by the Commissioner was set 
aside by a Single Judge of the High Court, which order 
was affirmed by Division Bench of High Court and 
therefore the instant appeal. 
H 
902 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 17 S.C.R. 
A 
The question which arose for consideration was 
whether the Commissioner under Section 62 of the 
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, 
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 can 
look into the legality of the order of dismissal from service 
B 
of a disabled person, if it comes to his notice that the said 
person with disat;>ilities has been deprived of his rights. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. The provisions of Sections 47 and 62 of the 
c 
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, 
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, 
when read together, empower the Commissioner, to look 
into the complaint with respect to the matters relating to 
deprivation of rights of persons with disabili

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