Summary
The Court set aside the first disciplinary inquiry against a CRPF officer whose mental disability contributed to the alleged misconduct, holding the proceedings discriminatory under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The earlier exemption under the repealed 1995 Act had not accrued as a protected privilege and was not saved under the new Act; the 2021 exemption did not apply to this pending case. Disability needed to be a contributing factor, rather than the sole cause. If reassignment became necessary, the officer’s pay and service conditions had to be protected, with an individualized assessment permitting a post without firearms or dangerous equipment.
Issues
- Which disability-rights regime and exemption governed the pending challenge to the disciplinary proceedings.
- Whether disability had to be the sole cause of the alleged misconduct to establish discrimination.
- What accommodation and service protection were required for the officer.
Provisions considered
- Section 6, General Clauses Act, 1897An abstract exemption privilege did not accrue merely through initiating proceedings; no relevant punishment had been imposed before repeal. (¶¶ 17-25, 33-34, 106(i)(a))
- Section 47; exemption notification dated 10 September 2002, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995The exemption concerned the specific protections in Section 47 and did not exclude the wider principle of non-discrimination. (¶¶ 18, 26-34)
- Section 102(2), read with Section 20, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016The broader Section 20 was not a corresponding provision preserving the old exemption; the 2016 Act governed this pending case. (¶¶ 35-41, 106(i)(c))
- Sections 2(h), 2(s), 3 and 20, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016Disability-related conduct and disadvantage required individualized scrutiny; the first inquiry constituted indirect discrimination on the facts. (¶¶ 41, 48-49, 90-98, 106(ii))
- Section 20(4) and its provisos, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016If unsuitable for current duties, the officer was entitled to suitable reassignment with pay and service protection, consistently with workplace safety. (¶¶ 99-101, 107)
Held
- Section 6 saves accrued specific rights or privileges, rather than mere expectations. The CRPF’s old exemption privilege regarding specified sanctions had not accrued merely by initiation of the inquiry, which was challenged before the relevant punishment stage. (¶¶ 20-25, 33-34, 106(i)(a))
- Non-discrimination permeated the 1995 Act beyond Section 47. The old notification exempted only the specified Section 47 protections; it did not confer a general licence to discriminate in employment. (¶¶ 26-34, 106(i)(b))
- Section 20 of the 2016 Act protected a wider range of employment rights and accommodation than Section 47. The old exemption was therefore not preserved as action under a corresponding provision. The 2021 exemption could not govern this case because the officer’s rights had crystallized when he filed the special leave petition before it was issued. (¶¶ 35-41, 99)
- Disability need only be one causal factor in the discriminatory action or the conduct leading to proceedings. Residual agency does not eliminate disability’s contribution. Protection depends on the statutory disability definition and an individualized understanding of disadvantage, rather than stereotypes or proof of total incapacity. (¶ 90-98)
- The officer’s documented, longstanding mental disability placed him at a disproportionate disadvantage under ordinary misconduct standards. On these facts, the first disciplinary inquiry constituted indirect discrimination and was set aside. The judgment did not dispose of every separate inquiry mentioned in the background. (¶¶ 98, 106(ii), 107)
- If current duties were unsuitable, reasonable accommodation required suitable reassignment with the same pay, emoluments and service conditions. Authorities could ensure the alternative post excluded firearms or equipment posing danger to the officer or others. (¶¶ 100-101, 107)
- The Court did not finally settle the interpretation of the Section 20(1) exemption proviso or formulate a complete standard for reviewing such exemptions. Its discussion of proportionality identified issues for future development. (¶ 102-105)
Result
Appeal allowed; first disciplinary inquiry set aside; Section 20(4) protection and individualized safe reassignment with protected pay and service conditions directed if necessary.