Mental Disability and Workplace Discrimination: Supreme Court Protects Rights of Employees in Disciplinary Proceedings (17 December 2021)

Supreme Court Protects Rights of Employees with Mental Disabilities in Disciplinary Proceedings

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee with a mental disability constitute workplace discrimination under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.

CASE TYPE: Service Law, Disability Rights

Case Name: Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. vs. The Union of India & Ors.

[Judgment Date]: 17 December 2021

Can an employer initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee for conduct arising from a mental health condition? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning an officer of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) who faced disciplinary actions after being diagnosed with a mental health disorder. The court’s decision clarifies the rights of employees with mental disabilities and establishes guidelines for employers.

This judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Vikram Nath. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Table of Contents

Case Background

The appellant, a CRPF officer, joined the force in 2001. He served in various locations across India. In 2010, while posted in Ajmer, a complaint was lodged against him by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP), alleging that he had threatened to kill or be killed, indicating an unsound mental state. Following this, departmental inquiries were initiated against him for various acts of alleged misconduct.

Simultaneously, the appellant was diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and secondary major depression, receiving treatment at multiple hospitals. A medical report from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital categorized him as permanently disabled with a 40-70% disability.

The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment had issued notifications in 2002 and 2021, exempting combatant personnel of the CRPF from certain provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, respectively.

Timeline

Date	Event
November 2001	Appellant joined the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF).
2003	Appellant appointed as Assistant Commandant.
2005-2007	Appellant served as Assistant Commandant in Chhattisgarh.
2007-2008	Appellant served in Srinagar.
2010	Appellant was serving in Ajmer.
18 April 2010	DIGP lodged a complaint against the appellant at Alwar Gate police station, alleging threats and unsound mental state.
8 July 2010	First inquiry initiated against the appellant under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965. Six charges were framed.
8 October 2010	Appellant was placed under suspension.
6 April 2011	Second inquiry initiated against the appellant for proceeding to Mukhed without depositing his pistol and ammunition.
27 July 2011	Standing order on the rehabilitation of force personnel was issued by the Directorate General, CRPF.
14 August 2012	The above standing order was amended.
2009-2010	Appellant started facing obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and secondary major depression. He visited a private psychologist at Kota, Rajasthan.
2011-2012	Appellant attended Kochhar psychiatric Centre, Delhi.
2012-2013	Appellant received treatment in PGIMS, Rohtak.
2013	Appellant was treated at the Government Multi -Specialty Hospital at Chandigarh.
3 October 2013	The enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report of the first enquiry.
2015	Appellant visited Gauhati Medical College for psychiatric treatment and also visited the Composite Hospital, Gauhati.
17 February 2015	Third inquiry initiated against the appellant for remaining absent without permission while under suspension.
7 August 2015	Notice was issued to the appellant pursuant to the first enquiry report.
4 August 2015 to 7 August 2015	Appellant was admitted for treatment at the Composite Hospital in Delhi.
7 August 2015	Single Judge of the High Court issued notice and passed an interim order directing that no further decision shall be taken in the disciplinary proceedings initiated in the first enquiry.
19 August 2016	Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the provisions of Section 47 of the PwD Act.
18 July 2016	The Composite Hospital declared the appellant unfit for duty and placed him under the S5(P) category.
31 August 2016	Appellant was placed in the S-5 category after Review Medical Examination in Composite Hospital, CRPF, Delhi.
27 December 2016	The RPwD Act came into force.
15 November 2018	Division Bench partly allowed the appeal and restored the enquiry proceedings to the stage of recording evidence.
14 April 2019	The Court of Enquiry noted that the appellant has been diagnosed with OCD and secondary major depression.
23 December 2019 to 30 December 2019	Review Medical Examinations were conducted in Composite Hospital, CRPF.
31 December 2019	Appellant was placed in medical category S -3.
16 March 2020	Appellant made a request for being transferred to the place where he was undergoing treatment.
5 October 2020	Special Leave Petition was instituted.
20 January 2021 to 29 January 2021	Review Medical Examinations were conducted which placed him in medical category S -2.
18 August 2021	Notification was issued under the RPwD Act, exempting CRPF from certain provisions.

Course of Proceedings

The Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court directed the state to consider the case of the petitioner in view of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995. The Division Bench set aside the enquiry report and restored the proceedings to the stage of evidence.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following legal provisions:

Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PwD Act): This section prohibits discrimination against employees who acquire a disability during their service. It states that no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. It also provides for reasonable accommodation, such as shifting the employee to another post with the same pay scale and service benefits.

“47. Non- discrimination in Government employments. — (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service: Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier; (2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.”
Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act): This section prohibits discrimination in employment against persons with disabilities. It mandates reasonable accommodation and a barrier-free environment for employees with disabilities.

“Section 20 – Non-discrimination in employment (1) No Government establishment shall discriminate against any person with disability in any matter relating to employment: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section. (2) Every Government establishment shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees with disability. (3) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability. (4) No Government establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his or her service Provided that, if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, shall be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. (5) The appropriate Government may frame policies for posting and transfer of employees with disabilities.”
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (GCA): This section deals with the effect of repeal of an enactment and protects any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired under the repealed enactment, unless a different intention appears.

“6. Effect of repeal – Where this Act, or any [Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not – (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed.”
Section 102 of the RPwD Act: This section states that anything done or any action taken under the PwD Act shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the RPwD Act.
The Mental Healthcare Act 2017: This act provides a rights-based framework for mental healthcare and recognizes the legal capacity of persons suffering from mental illness to make decisions about their treatment.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

The appellant developed mental health issues due to continuous postings in areas with anti-insurgency operations.
He was diagnosed with OCD, secondary major depression, and bipolar affective disorder during service.
The departmental inquiries were initiated for acts committed after he developed severe mental illnesses.
The principles of natural justice were not followed in the departmental enquiries. It is unreasonable to expect a person undergoing severe mental health issues to lead evidence and defend himself.
He is entitled to protection under Section 20 of the RPwD Act, which is similar to Section 47 of the PwD Act.
The exemption granted to CRPF under the PwD Act is no longer valid after the RPwD Act came into force.

Respondent’s Submissions:

The appellant was involved in various acts of misconduct, leading to the initiation of departmental enquiries.
Exposure to insurgency does not necessarily result in mental health issues.
The appellant did not produce himself for medical treatment.
The appellant actively participated in the first and second departmental inquiries and never claimed a mental health disorder at that time.
The Mental Healthcare Act was enacted in 2017, while the acts of misconduct relate to 2010 and 2011.
The appellant has been deployed in peaceful stations since 2014 and has adequate medical facilities available.
The appellant has taken contradictory stands, claiming mental illness to avoid penalty and then claiming to be medically fit to avoid invalidation from service.
The exemption granted to the CRPF under the PwD Act continues under the RPwD Act.
According to department standing orders, CRPF personnel with mental illness are invalidated from service if they are not upgraded to S-2 category within 48 weeks.

Submissions Table

Main Submission	Appellant’s Sub-submissions	Respondent’s Sub-submissions
Mental Health Condition	Developed due to stressful postings. Diagnosed with OCD, depression, and bipolar disorder. Received extensive treatment. Declared permanently disabled.	Exposure to insurgency does not cause mental health issues. Appellant did not seek treatment from force medical officers. Medical reports do not indicate mental illness. Appellant took contradictory stands regarding his fitness.
Departmental Enquiries	Initiated for acts committed after developing mental illness. Principles of natural justice not followed. Unreasonable to expect a person with mental health issues to defend himself.	Appellant was involved in various acts of misconduct. The appellant actively participated in the first and second departmental inquiries. The acts of misconduct relate to 2010 and 2011 when he was posted in Ajmer.
Applicability of Disability Laws	Entitled to protection under Section 20 of the RPwD Act. Exemption granted to CRPF under the PwD Act is no longer valid.	The exemption granted to the CRPF under the PwD Act continues under the RPwD Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

What is the applicable law concerning the validity of the disciplinary proceedings?
Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant was discriminatory?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Issue	Court’s Decision
Applicable Law	The Court held that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) is applicable, not the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, because no privilege had accrued to the respondent under the 1995 Act. Additionally, the 2002 notification exempting the CRPF was not saved by the 2016 Act.
Discriminatory Proceedings	The Court found the disciplinary proceedings to be discriminatory, as the appellant’s mental disability was one of the factors that led to the initiation of the proceedings. The Court held that it is not necessary to prove that the disability was the sole cause of the misconduct.

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Authority	Court	How it was used	Legal Point
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amrit Lal & Co., (2001) 8 SCC 397	Supreme Court of India	Discussed the accrual of rights and privileges under Section 6 of the GCA.	Accrual of rights and privileges.
Hamilton Gell v. White, (1922) 2 KB 422	Court of Appeal	Discussed the accrual of rights under a repealed statute.	Accrual of rights.
Director of Public Works v. Ho Po Sang, (1961) 2 All ER 721	Judicial Committee of the Privy Council	Differentiated between investigation of rights and investigation to decide if rights should be given.	Accrual of rights.
M.S Shivanda v. KSRTC, (1980) 1 SCC 149	Supreme Court of India	Referred to with approval observations on accrual.	Accrual of rights.
Bansidhar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 557	Supreme Court of India	Referred to with approval observations on accrual.	Accrual of rights.
Lalji Raja Sons v. Firm Hansraj Nathuram, [1971] 3 SCR 815	Supreme Court of India	Affirmed that only specific rights are saved under Section 6 of GCA.	Accrual of rights.
Abbot v. Minister for Lands, (1895) AC 425	Privy Council	Held that the mere right existing in the members of the community to take advantage of an enactment, without any act done by an individual towards availing himself of that right, cannot be deemed to be a ‘right accrued’.	Accrual of rights.
Thyssen Stahlunion Gmbh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (1999) 9 SCC 334	Supreme Court of India	Affirmed observations in Abbott (supra) and termed abstract rights as inchoate rights.	Accrual of rights.
Pankajakshi (dead) through LRs’ v. Chandrika, (2016) 6 SCC 157	Supreme Court of India	Discussed the test for identifying ‘corresponding’ statutes.	Corresponding statutes.
Kalpana Kothari v. Sudha Yadhav, (2002) 1 SCC 203	Supreme Court of India	Discussed the test for identifying ‘corresponding’ statutes.	Corresponding statutes.
Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission, (2021) 5 SCC 370	Supreme Court of India	Recognized the social construction of disability and the necessity to provide reasonable accommodation.	Reasonable accommodation.
Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 761	Supreme Court of India	Discussed the principles of non-discrimination and reasonable differentiation.	Equality and non-discrimination.
Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 413	Supreme Court of India	Held that the principle of reasonable differentiation, recognizing the different needs of persons with disabilities is a facet of the principle of equality.	Reasonable differentiation.
Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 397	Supreme Court of India	Held that the principle of reasonable differentiation, recognizing the different needs of persons with disabilities is a facet of the principle of equality.	Reasonable differentiation.
Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1	Supreme Court of India	Made observations on Section 115 of the 2017 Act, emphasizing the necessity to view the act of committing suicide as an act of circumstances.	Mental health discourse.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39	Supreme Court of India	Highlighted the mental health concerns of the LGBT community and the correlation between the political and social environments, and the mental health of an individual.	Mental health discourse.
Accused X v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 7 SCC 1	Supreme Court of India	Held that post-conviction mental illness could be a mitigating factor for commuting the punishment from death sentence to life imprisonment.	Mental health discourse.
Mahendra KC v. The State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1021	Supreme Court of India	Observed that remarks of the Single Judge of the High Court gravely undermined the mental health discourse in India.	Mental health discourse.
Borgialli v. Thunder Basin Coal Co., 235 F.3d 1284 (10th Cir. 2000)	US Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit	Held that an employee with mental health disorders, who posed a direct risk to safety, was not protected under the ADA.	Direct risk defense under ADA.
Hamilton v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 136 F.3d 1047 (5th Cir. 1998)	US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit	Held that discharge of an employee with PTSD was not discrimination based on disability but the employee’s failure to recognize acceptable workplace behavior.	Misconduct and disability under ADA.
Teahan v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad, 951 F.2d 511 (2d Cir. 1991)	US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit	Held that if absenteeism was solely a consequence of substance abuse, the discharge would constitute discrimination.	Misconduct and disability under ADA.
Den Hartog v. Wasatch Academy, 129 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 1997)	US Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit	Rejected the division between disability and disability-related conduct and held that employers should first assess if misconduct can be remedied by reasonable accommodation.	Misconduct and disability under ADA.
Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (2003)	US Supreme Court	Held that a neutral no-hire policy can be a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for not rehiring a former employee.	Disparate treatment and disparate impact under ADA.
British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 SCR 3	Canadian Supreme Court	Developed a three-stage test to determine whether an employer may use the bona fide occupational requirement defense.	Bona fide occupational requirement in Canada.
Entrop v. Imperial Oil, (2000) 50 OR (3d) 18	Ontario Court of Appeal	Held that randomized drug and alcohol testing can be a bona fide operational requirement in safety-sensitive workplaces but requires accommodation.	Bona fide occupational requirement in Canada.
Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corp., [2017] 1 SCR 591	Canadian Supreme Court	Addressed the issue of drug addiction and workplace policy, with differing opinions on whether the employer had a duty to accommodate.	Addiction and workplace policy in Canada.
HK Danmark v. Dansk Almennyttigt Boligselskab DAB and HK Danmark v. Pro Display A/S in Konkurs, 11 April 2013, joined cases C-335/11 and C—337/11	Court of Justice of the EU	Held that a curable or incurable illness can be covered by the concept of ‘disability’ if it entails a long-term limitation.	Concept of disability in EU.
Tartu Vangla, Case C-795/19	Court of Justice of the EU	Held that absolute medical requirements for employment that do not allow for individual assessment or reasonable accommodation are not proportionate.	Reasonable accommodation in EU.
Smith v. Kit Kat Group (Pty) Ltd., (2017) 38 ILJ 483 (LC)	Labour Court of South Africa	Made a distinction between disability and incapacity, stating that an employer must assess the impact of a disability on an employee’s ability to discharge their duties.	Disability and incapacity in South Africa.
Pharmaco Distribution (Pty) Ltd. v. EWN, (2017) 38 ILJ 2496 (LAC)	Labour Court of Appeal of South Africa	Held that the dismissal of an employee for not complying with a medical examination was discriminatory as it was due to her bipolar disorder.	Discrimination based on disability in South Africa.
New Way Motor & Diesel Engineering (Pty) Ltd v. Marsland, (2009) 30 ILJ 2875 (LAC)	Labour Court of Appeal of South Africa	Held that the dismissal of an employee due to a nervous breakdown and subsequent ostracization was unfair discrimination based on mental health.	Discrimination based on mental health in South Africa.
Legal Aid South Africa v. Ockert Jansen, (2020) 41 ILJ 2580 (LAC)	Labour Court of Appeal of South Africa	Provided a detailed analysis of how depression should be considered in the workplace, including as a potential mitigating factor in cases of misconduct.	Depression in the workplace in South Africa.
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, (2008) 3 SCC 1	Supreme Court of India	Held that socially ascribed gender roles or stereotypes regarding sex would not be distinguishable from discrimination solely based on sex.	Intersectional nature of discrimination.
Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 343	Supreme Court of India	Observed that the terms “on the ground of” would not entail proving that the offence against a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe took place solely on the ground of their caste or tribal identity.	Causal link between harm and ground for discrimination.
Ltd. Col. Nitisha and Ors. v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 261	Supreme Court of India	Recognized the concept of indirect discrimination.	Indirect discrimination.
Chintaman Rao v State of MP AIR 1951 SC 118	Supreme Court of India	Observed that a measure that limits rights must have a proportional relationship to the right.	Proportionality analysis.
VG Row v State of Madras AIR 1952 SC 196	Supreme Court of India	Observed that a measure that limits rights must have a proportional relationship to the right.	Proportionality analysis.
Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353	Supreme Court of India	Evolved a test for applying proportionality analysis to a rights-limiting measure.	Proportionality analysis.
Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1	Supreme Court of India	Used proportionality analysis in relation to other rights.	Proportionality analysis.
Puttaswamy (II) v Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1	Supreme Court of India	Used proportionality analysis in relation to other rights.	Proportionality analysis.
Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637	Supreme Court of India	Used proportionality analysis in relation to other rights.	Proportionality analysis.
Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India (2020) 10 SCC 274	Supreme Court of India	Used proportionality analysis in relation toother rights.	Proportionality analysis.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court. The Court held that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were discriminatory and violated the RPwD Act. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s mental disability was a factor in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, which constitutes discrimination.

The Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the appellant in light of the RPwD Act, including the provision of reasonable accommodation.

Key Takeaways

This judgment has significant implications for employers and employees with mental disabilities:

Protection against Discrimination: The Supreme Court has affirmed that employees with mental disabilities are protected against discrimination under the RPwD Act, and disciplinary proceedings initiated due to conduct arising from a mental health condition can be considered discriminatory.
Reasonable Accommodation: Employers are required to provide reasonable accommodation to employees with mental disabilities, which may include transferring them to suitable posts or providing necessary support.
Mental Health Awareness: The judgment underscores the importance of mental health awareness in the workplace and calls for a more empathetic and inclusive approach towards employees with mental health conditions.
Proportionality: The Court’s analysis of proportionality principles highlights that any measure limiting rights must have a proportional relationship to the right and that a blanket exemption for the CRPF is not justified.
Causal Link: It is not necessary to prove that the disability was the sole cause of the misconduct; it is sufficient to show that it was one of the factors that led to the disciplinary action.

Flowchart of the Decision-Making Process

Employee with Mental Disability

↓

Conduct Arising from Mental Health Condition

↓

Disciplinary Proceedings Initiated

↓

Court Assesses if Disability was a Factor in Proceedings

↓

If Yes, Proceedings are Discriminatory

↓

Employer Must Provide Reasonable Accommodation

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is a landmark judgment that reinforces the rights of employees with mental disabilities. It emphasizes the need for a more inclusive and empathetic approach in the workplace, ensuring that individuals with mental health conditions are not subjected to discrimination. The judgment also highlights the importance of reasonable accommodation and the proportionality principle in balancing the rights of employees with the operational needs of the employer.

Source: Supreme Court Protects Rights of Employees in Disciplinary Proceedings