Delhi High Court: Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 17-10-2018 passed by respondents, whereby was dismissed from service. He also seeks quashing of other impugned orders dated 4-3-2019 and 23-8-2019, whereby his punishment of “dismissal from service” had been upheld by respondents, and mercy petition against such order had been rejected, respectively. The Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva* and Manoj Jain, JJ., opined that instead of showing empathy with 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 Court thus directed that petitioner should be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
Background
Petitioner joined Sashastra Seema Bal (‘SSB’) on 4-5-2013 as a Constable and as per respondents, he while performing his duties as a Dog Handler had attempted to commit suicide by consuming liquid poison on 28-7-2017. Based on the Court of Inquiry and record of evidence, petitioner was found guilty of (a) leaving the Battalion Headquarters premises and going to the local market without the prior permission from his superiors thereby willfully absenting himself and (b) in order to voluntarily render himself unfit for service had consumed roundup i.e., weed controller, in the dog kennel, which he had purchased from the local market. For the said charges, he was awarded a sentence of imprisonment in force custody up to 89 days w.e.f. 18-1-2018 to 16-4-2018.
Petitioner was diagnosed with bouts of depression and had been undergoing psychiatric treatment and medication. He was also downgraded to Lower Medical Category and was recommended to work under supervision and not to carry any weapons. Petitioner, while serving his sentence of imprisonment of 89 days, was undergoing psychiatric treatment for depression, and was placed under supervision. Petitioner contended that instead of ensuring that petitioner was rehabilitated, and his condition was not worsened, he was sentenced to 89 days imprisonment for consuming poison and absence without leave.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court, after considering the testimony of the witnesses, opined that it was clear that petitioner was disturbed by the fact that his girlfriend had left him, and his family was blaming him for the breaking of his sister’s marriage. The testimonies established that he had left a suicide note and then climbed up to the Water Tank. However, the testimonies further established that he was merely sitting on the water tank and listening to a recording on his phone. The testimonies do not establish that he was attempting to jump or take any drastic step.
The Court after noting that petitioner, who was suffering from bouts of depression and was undergoing psychiatric treatment and medication, was clearly under a lot of stress. Thus, the Court opined that despite petitioner’s medical treatment, he was sentenced to undergo 89 days of rigorous imprisonment for an attempt to commit suicide.
The Court opined that though the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, did not sit as an Appellate Court and re-appreciate the evidence, however, the present case, was a case of no evidence and complete miscarriage of justice in as much as the Competent Authority had been totally oblivious of the mental health of petitioner and had treated him as an ordinary offender.
The Court observed that Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 raised a statutory presumption that any person who attempted to commit suicide should be presumed to have severe stress and should not be tried and punished under the Penal Code, 1860. It further casted a duty upon the appropriate Government to provide care, treatment, and rehabilitation to a person, having stress and who attempted to commit suicide to reduce the risk of recurrence of attempt to commit suicide.
The Court opined that instead of showing any empathy with 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 medical records pertaining to mental health condition of petitioner, i.e., the OPD cards, psychometric assessment, consultation, prescriptions etc., were not even examined by the SFC or taken on record. Even when the medical condition was brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority, it was also not considered. Even the doctors under whom petitioner was receiving treatment were not examined to evaluate petitioner’s mental health and to consider the proportionality of punishment.
The Court agreed with petitioner’s contention that respondents were treating mental illness, like depression, as a “bad conduct” and petitioner was being called a “habitual offender” as if he had a choice of mental illness or deliberately self-inflicted depression upon himself. Thus, the Court opined that the punishment of dismissal from service was highly disproportionate to petitioner’s alleged conduct.
The Court set aside the impugned order dated 17-10-2018 dismissing petitioner from service and the orders dated 4-3-2019 and 23-8-2019 upholding the punishment and dismissing the appeal. The Court directed that petitioner should be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
[Vasudev Panchal v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1588, decided on 28-2-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Aanchal Anand, Advocate
For the Respondents: Satya Ranjan Swain, Senior Panel Counsel; Sahaj Garg, GP; Kautilya Birat, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
