Case Note & Summary
The case involved two intra-court appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu Police Department against a common order of a single judge of the Madras High Court that had quashed a charge memo and directed alternate employment to a Syces (horse caretaker) in the police mounted branch. The respondent, K. Sakthivel, was appointed as a Syces in 2005 and regularized in 2008. In 2010, he developed a knee ailment that made strenuous duties impossible. The department initially gave him alternate duty as a Helper by an order dated 09.06.2010, but after one year, he was arbitrarily reverted to Syces duties without any medical assessment. Despite his disability, he worked until 2013, then applied for medical leave and requested alternate duty. When the department failed to respond, he filed W.P.No.17080 of 2013 seeking alternate employment. While this petition was pending, the department issued a charge memo on 23.05.2016 for unauthorized absence from 29.09.2013 to 17.11.2013. He challenged this in W.P.No.36667 of 2016. The single judge referred him to a Medical Board, which assessed 40% permanent disability, and accordingly quashed the charge memo and directed the department to provide a lighter post like Helper or Assistant with all benefits. The police department appealed, contending that the charge memo was justified because the respondent was absent without sanctioned leave, that the 1995 Act did not apply as he had not produced a medical certificate, and that the post of Assistant was promotional and could not be given as alternate duty. The respondent argued that his disability arose during service, that the department had earlier acknowledged it by giving alternate duty, and that the charge memo was retaliatory. The division bench noted that once the disability was acknowledged in 2010, the department could not revert him without referring to a Medical Board, and the third appellant had acted contrary to instructions. The failure to provide appropriate alternate employment rendered the charge memo for unauthorized absence unsustainable. The matter was reserved on 12.02.2025 and pronounced on 19.02.2025; the provided text of the judgment does not include the final operative order.
Headnote
A) Persons with Disabilities Act - Alternate Employment - Section 47, The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Employee who acquired disability during service entitled to alternate post with same pay scale and service benefits - Employer cannot revert employee to strenuous duty without medical board opinion; denial of lighter duty and issuance of charge memo for absence held illegal - Held that the action of reverting the respondent to Syces without medical assessment was arbitrary, and the charge memo could not be sustained (Paras 23-25).
B) Service Law - Disciplinary Enquiry - Quashing of Charge Memo - Section 47, The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Charge memo for unauthorized absence issued despite employee's medical condition and pending representation for alternate duty amounts to harassment - Held that when the employer fails to provide appropriate alternate employment as mandated, a disciplinary proceeding for absence is an abuse of process (Paras 23-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the single judge was correct in quashing the charge memo and directing alternate employment; whether the charge memo for unauthorized absence issued to an employee with disability is sustainable under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 47(1) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities
- Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act
- 1995
- mandates that an employee acquiring disability during service cannot be dispensed with or reduced in rank and must be shifted to an alternate post with same pay scale
- once employer acknowledges disability and provides alternate duty
- it cannot arbitrarily revert without referring to Medical Board
- a charge memo for unauthorized absence is quashed if absence is due to denial of appropriate alternate employment.
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 71
W.A.Nos.1102 and 1173 of 2024 and C.M.P.Nos.7929 and 8487 of 2024
R. Subramanian, G. Arul Murugan
Citation not available, 2025:MHC:435
For Appellants: Mr.P.Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.Yashwanth, Additional Government Pleader; For Respondent: Mr.D.Ashok Kumar for Mr.D.Bennington for Caveator
The Director General of Police, The Commissioner of Police, The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Armed Force) and others
K. Sakthivel S/o K. Kuppusamy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeals by the State Police Department challenging the single judge's order quashing a charge memo for unauthorized absence and directing alternate employment to a Syces who acquired disability.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the common order of the writ court and sustain the charge memo; respondent sought dismissal of appeals and confirmation of the single judge's order.
Filing Reason
The police department filed appeals as they contended that the employee was unauthorisedly absent and the charge memo was legal, and that alternate employment in a promotional post was not permissible.
Previous Decisions
Single Judge of Madras High Court in W.P.Nos.17080 of 2013 & 36667 of 2016 dated 29.03.2023 quashed the charge memo dated 23.05.2016 and directed the department to consider the petitioner's health condition and give him a lighter post, after the Medical Board assessed 40% permanent disability.
Issues
Whether the single judge was right in quashing the charge memo for unauthorized absence when the employee had acquired a disability and was not provided appropriate alternate employment?
Whether the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, mandate the employer to provide alternate employment and protect the employee from termination or reduction in rank?
Whether a charge memo can be sustained when the employee's absence was due to the employer's failure to provide lighter duty as per the disability law?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants: The respondent was appointed as Syces specially for horse maintenance; he was unauthorisedly absent from 29.09.2013 to 17.11.2013; the charge memo was valid; the alternate duty given in 2010 was temporary and he was fit to resume; he did not produce any medical certificate of disability; the 1995 Act does not apply as diabetes is common; the post of Assistant is promotional and cannot be given as alternate duty.
Respondent: He suffered knee ailment during service; he was earlier given alternate duty but arbitrarily reverted; his absence was due to medical condition and the department's failure to provide lighter duty; the Medical Board assessed 40% disability; the charge memo was issued only because he approached the court; he is entitled to protection under Section 47 of the 1995 Act.
Ratio Decidendi
Once an employer acknowledges an employee's disability and provides alternate duty, it cannot arbitrarily revert the employee without a fresh medical opinion; a charge memo for unauthorized absence issued in such circumstances is an abuse of process and liable to be quashed; Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, imposes a duty to provide alternate employment to an employee who acquired disability during service, and failure to do so invalidates any disciplinary action based on absence.
Judgment Excerpts
this argument ... cannot be accepted for the simple reason that once the disability acquired by the respondent in the year 2010 while in service had been acknowledged by the appellants and a specific order was passed ... there is no proceedings placed before this Court whereby the earlier order was reviewed which permitted the subordinates to assign the respondent with duties as Syces in the stable.
the third appellant had simply, in deviance from the instructions issued by the second appellant, directed the respondent to resume duty as Syces without even obtaining a medical opinion. As such the third appellant had prevented the respondent to be in employment by discharging duties as Assistant as was entrusted to him and in which he had been working for a period of one year.
Procedural History
The respondent, appointed as Syces in 2005 and regularized in 2008, developed a knee ailment in 2010. By order dated 09.06.2010, he was given alternate duty as Helper, but reverted to Syces on 09.06.2011. After medical leave and representations, he filed W.P.No.17080 of 2013 seeking alternate duty. The department issued a charge memo on 23.05.2016 for unauthorized absence from 29.09.2013 to 17.11.2013, leading to W.P.No.36667 of 2016. The single judge, after referring the respondent to a Medical Board that found 40% permanent disability, quashed the charge memo and directed alternate employment on 29.03.2023. The police department filed W.A.Nos.1102 and 1173 of 2024, heard by the division bench on 12.02.2025 and pronounced on 19.02.2025.
Acts & Sections
- The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995: Section 47(1)
