New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, balancing “discipline of the force” and “mental health vulnerabilities”, on 3 November, set aside all disciplinary actions against a CRPF man, ruling that the punitive measures, fundamentally, were “discriminatory, unfair” and contrary to disability and mental health laws.
The case was around Chhattar Singh’s documented mental illness, including obsessive compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) and a “moderate depressive episode”. His conditions, the Delhi High Court said, had been ignored during the disciplinary proceedings against him, thus rendering the entire process unlawful and discriminatory.
Chhattar Singh was dismissed from service on two grounds: ‘absent from service’ and ‘insubordination’. On a revision plea against the removal order, though, he was reinstated, but as a punishment, his increment for the next five years was stopped.
Hearing his plea, a Delhi High Court division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the CRPF had failed to provide him the protections guaranteed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
The court, which reserved its judgment on 3 November and delivered it a month later Wednesday not Thursday, further reprimanded the CRPF, saying the disciplinary proceedings were conducted as if the RPwD Act provisions did not apply to him. Specifically, “without even acknowledging or accommodating his mental illness”, it noted.
“No steps were taken to modify duties, provide medical support, or tailor the enquiry to the petitioner’s cognitive and functional limitations,” the bench said, concluding, “Applying the above-mentioned principle, the failure to provide reasonable accommodation in itself constitutes discrimination, thereby tainting the disciplinary proceedings.”
The bench stated that “mental illness cannot be treated as a stigma, a character flaw, or a disciplinary infraction”. The CRPF treated Chattar Singh as “an ordinary delinquent employee, ignoring the documented mental illness that impaired his functional capacity”, it noted.
The Delhi High Court clarified that even though Chhattar Singh resides in Rajasthan and is posted in Jammu & Kashmir, it was hearing his plea since it has writ jurisdiction over the CRPF under Article 226 of the Constitution. “…the challenge concerns the legality of a centralised disciplinary action having enduring impact on the service rights of the petitioner,” it added.
Also Read: Blind UPSC candidates get a boost with big Supreme Court order on scribes & screen readers
‘Indiscipline’ & punishment
The disciplinary issues against Chhattar Singh stemmed from two incidents in 2018. On 29 July 2018, he was accused of being absent from his designated duty area during the Annual Range Classification Firing. Moreover, he allegedly behaved in an “indisciplined” way, displaying “insubordination” towards the range officer on returning to a butt (archery) range. As punishment, he was made to stand under the sun for roughly four hours.
The second incident on 20 October 2018 occurred at the 5 Signal Battalion in Chandigarh. Chhattar Singh was accused of disobeying orders and allegedly engaging in a scuffle with the inspector/RO or subedar major, where the latter raised his hand to attack him. Reacting, Chhattar Singh allegedly pushed the subedar in self-defence, and he fell and was injured in his right eye. In this case, the charges against Singh included using criminal force, refusal to comply with orders, arrogant conduct, and previous instances of misconduct, after which a suspension order was issued against him on the same day.
Following formal proceedings, the disciplinary authority passed a final order dated 1 May 2019 against Chhattar Singh, imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement, along with a 30 percent reduction in pension and gratuity. The order even directed the confiscation of his medals and awards under Section 12(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and recovery or adjustment of outstanding dues. Then, Chhattar Singh was removed from the ‘nafri (unit)’ of his battalion, with effect from 1 May 2019.
Medical diagnosis ‘ignored’
Amid the disciplinary case, Chhattar Singh underwent a psychiatric evaluation. On 30 October 2018, a Jaipur-based civil hospital diagnosed him with OCPD, which fits the definition of “mental illness” in the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
He was then referred by a medical board to the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, where specialists confirmed a “moderate depressive episode”. Besides, they found below-average intelligence on IQ assessment, and advised that Singh “should not handle firearms for a minimum period of one year”.
Despite these medical findings, including “substantial disorders of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory, impairing judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognise reality, or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life”, the CRPF passed a disciplinary order against him in May 2019, the Delhi High Court noted.
‘Arbitrary condition’
After Chhattar Singh sought revision under the CRPF rules, the inspector general (communication & information technology) set aside compulsory retirement on 6 March 2020, reinstating him into service. The revisional authority substituted the punishment with “stoppage of next increment for five years with cumulative effect” and treated the entire duration from 1 May 2019 (afternoon) until reinstatement or reporting as “period not spent on duty”. Later, Chhattar Singh reported to his unit on 27 May 2020. His reinstatement, however, was effected on 8 July 2020, after he was made to deposit his terminal dues back.
However, the Delhi High Court Wednesday held that this condition was “extraneous, arbitrary, and unsupported by any rule or procedure”. Allowing Chhattar Singh’s writ petition, the court found the actions of the CRPF unlawful as the authorities had failed to account for his mental disability. The ruling drew from a Supreme Court precedent in the Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, 2021, case, affirming that disciplinary action arising from disability-linked behaviour amounted to “indirect discrimination”.
The court recorded two major statutory violations. First, failure to provide reasonable accommodation in the proceedings between December 2016 and August 2021. With no exemption notification in force, the CRPF was bound under Section 20 of the RPwD Act to ensure non-discrimination and support measures. The second violation was the denial of access to medical records. The court noted that Chhattar Singh’s requests for mental health documentation were repeatedly denied, violating Section 25 of the Mental Healthcare Act, safeguarding informed defence, dignity, and privacy under Article 21.
The Delhi High Court independently examined the substituted penalty and found it “impermissible in law and ultra vires”. It held that “the punishment” was of a major character, not authorised under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, or under Rules 27 and 72 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. The ruling noted that withholding increments, with cumulative effect, permanently depresses pay and pension—an outcome beyond what service rules permit.
Restoration of CRPF service benefits
The bench noted that “while the discipline of the force is undoubtedly of paramount significance, the law equally mandates accommodation, and fairness where mental health vulnerabilities are established”.
With the proceedings against Chhattar Singh vitiated, the Delhi High Court granted him relief in the form of “full restoration of service benefits as if the penalty had not intervened”. It also stated that the condition imposed by the CRPF for his reinstatement in May 2020—requiring a refund of terminal dues before reinstatement—is without legal sanction.
Emphasising that the intervening period from May 2019 (afternoon) to May 2020 shall be treated as “duty for all purposes” under the CRPF Rules, the court said that the petitioner was entitled to full pay, allowances, increments, continuity of service, and pension. Lastly, “the period wrongly treated as dies non [a period not spent on duty] shall also stand regularised, with all consequential arrears and benefits to be computed”.
Further, invoking Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act, the Delhi High Court said Chhattar Singh must be allowed to continue service. If found unfit for his existing role, he should be shifted to an equivalent post, or a supernumerary, after ensuring that his duties do not involve “the use of or control over firearms or equipment which may pose a danger to the petitioner or others”.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: Work-life balance, gender bias emerge as top hurdles for women lawyers in Delhi-NCR: SCBA