MOHINDER CHHABRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Strange are the ways of the officers of the respondent-Ministry! An employee who is suffering from chronic schizophrenia and is under treatment of the own hospitals of the respondent is sought to be removed from service for absence from duty during the same period which can hardly be willful. Not only that, even endeavours made by learned counsel for the petitioner to put an end to the dispute as also suggestions which flowed from the Court have met with only a negative response possibly because no officer of the respondent considers himself responsible for the financial consequences which would now flow arising from the present petition.

(2.) Now coming to the facts of the case. The petitioner was appointed as a Chargeman (B) on being selected through the process carried on by the Railway Recruitment Board on 20.09.1989. The petitioner went through the complete medical examination and a training course and was thereafter re-designated as JE-II. Unfortunately, after a period of two years in service, the petitioner started suffering from a psychiatric illness and remained under treatment of the hospitals of the respondent-department at LLR Hospital, RCF, Kapurthala and Railways Central Hospital, New Delhi. The petitioner was re-examined on 28.04.1992 by the Psychiatrist at the Central Hospital in New Delhi and was declared fit.

(3.) Unfortunately, the petitioner had a second bout in 1998 when he remained under treatment for chronic schizophrenia. He was declared fit after treatment to perform his duty on 21.01.1999, but on being posted, it was opined by the department that he was not fit to perform his duties. The petitioner again fell sick on 10.05.1999 and could not resume his duties suffering from the chronic disease and the condition of the petitioner became worse with the result that he had to be taken to the General Hospital in Delhi on 02.07.1999. The aforesaid facts show that the petitioner has been under constant treatment of the respondent s hospitals itself. Surprisingly and shockingly when the petitioner was under treatment, respondent No. 4 served a chargesheet dated 09.07.1999 on the petitioner which was delivered to him in July, 1999 at his home address. The sole charge against the petitioner was of absence from duty from 10.05.1999 when he was under treatment.