New Delhi: Stressed by problems in his family and love life, a dog handler with the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) tried to take his own life in 2018. This was seen as an offence by the SSB, which probed his ‘misconduct’ and then dismissed him from service — despite the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 which had decriminalised suicide.
Six years later, the Delhi High Court has ordered his reinstatement, and hauled up the border guarding force SSB for giving him the harshest punishment, instead of being empathetic.
In the order, which has far-reaching implications on service conditions, the HC last week chastised the SSB for losing sight of the constable’s mental health concerns, and instead imprisoning him for over three months before eventually throwing him out.
A bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva allowed constable Vasudev Panchal’s petition for reinstatement, while holding that he was dismissed from work without “any evidence” in a case of “strong miscarriage of justice”.
Despite multiple appeals and a “mercy petition” owing to his mental health, his pleas against dismissal were rejected by the SSB, the court observed.
Thereafter Panchal approached the HC to quash the SSB order. His lawyer Anchal Anand argued that the force should have been more sensitive towards Panchal. The force, she said, should have gotten Panchal’s mental illness treated.
Panchal said he attempted suicide in 2018 owing to personal problems. He was undergoing psychiatric treatment at that time.
According to the SSB, Panchal was found on the top of a water tank, following which a suicide note was recovered from his quarters. A court of inquiry led to his dismissal from service on charges of “violation of good order” and “miscellaneous offences”.
In July 2017 as well, he was accused of attempting suicide through liquid poison in a dog kennel. After an inquiry by a SSB court, he was sentenced to “rigorous imprisonment” for 89 days.
Anand cited the legal provisions that require one to “presume” that an individual is under “severe stress” before providing him or her treatment and care.
“The Commandant instead of taking into account his mental condition and a empathetic view of the fact that he had attempted to take a drastic step of taking his own life, awarded him the harshest of punishment (of) be(ing) dismissed from service,” observed the HC in relation to the treatment meted out to the constable, and directed Panchal’s immediate reinstatement.
Justice Sachdeva noted that the force did not take note of Panchal’s medical condition even though the appellate authority was aware of it.
“In the instant case, instead of showing any empathy with the Petitioner, when he first attempted to commit suicide, the commanding officer sentenced him to 89 days rigorous imprisonment particularly when he was already undergoing psychiatric treatment,” the HC observed.
“Instead of finding the root cause of the problem and trying to counsel the petitioner a drastic step was taken by sentencing him to 89 days of incarceration. This instead of resolving the problem would have compounded it further,” it added.
Justice Sachdeva also talked about the immense stress the armed forces operate under. For personnel employed with them, the stress gets compounded with personal events and there is a possibility of someone taking extreme steps in such a condition, he said.
Expressing his displeasure over the lack of sensitivity displayed in this case, the judge was peeved to find that Panchal was referred to as a “habitual offender” due to his mental illness, “as if he had inflicted the illness upon himself”.
On merits, the court, upon perusal of the statements of six witnesses, concluded that none of them suggested Panchal attempted suicide. They merely stated that he was found sitting on a water tank, listening to a recording, and lighting a beedi.
“Testimonies do not establish that he was attempting to jump or take any drastic step,” the court noted.
Panchal’s counsel contended that given his mental health history, a presumption of stress should have been raised under the law. He should not have been saddled with the charge. To rebut this, it was required to be proven that he was in a fit mental state to understand his actions, which was not established.
On the other hand, the SSB said a “fair opportunity” was given to the constable to defend himself and charges had been framed appropriately by the court of inquiry before dismissing him from service.
(Edited by Tikli Basu)