Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2004 DIGILAW 826 (SC)

State Of W. B. v. ASHISH KUMAR MUKHERJEE

2004-07-26

A.R.LAKSHMANAN, K.G.BALAKRISHNAN

body2004
ORDER 1.HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 2.LEAVE GRANTED. 3. THE RESPONDENT WAS SELECTED AS A CONSTABLE IN 1993. AS PART OF THE APPOINTMENT, THE ANTECEDENTS OF THE RESPONDENT WERE VERIFIED. IT WAS FOUND THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN A CRIMINAL CASE. THE RESPONDENT WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE MADE AN ATTEMPT TO HIJACK A PLANE AND HE WAS ARRESTED BY THE POLICE AND WAS SUBJECTED TO MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND IT WAS FOUND THAT HE WAS SUFFERING FROM UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND. ON THE BASIS OF THIS REPORT, THE RESPONDENT WAS DISCHARGED FROM THE CRIMINAL CASE. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THAT, THE RESPONDENT WAS REMOVED FROM SERVICE. THE RESPONDENT FILED A PETITION BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, HE FILED A WRIT PETITION AND THE DIVISION BENCH DIRECTED THAT THERE SHALL BE MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THE RESPONDENT BY THE DOCTOR AND AFTER SUCH EXAMINATION IF THE RESPONDENT IS FOUND TO BE MENTALLY SOUND THE APPELLANT MAY CONSIDER THE APPOINTMENT OF THE RESPONDENT IN ANY VACANCY, AND IT WAS MADE FURTHER CLEAR THAT IF THE AUTHORITIES FIND FROM THE MEDICAL REPORT THAT THE RESPONDENT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR THE POST OF ARMED CONSTABLE, THE RESPONDENT MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR ANY OTHER LOWER POST. THIS FINDING OF THE DIVISION BENCH IS CHALLENGED BEFORE US. 4. THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS INVOLVED IN A SERIOUS CRIMINAL CASE, IT MAY NOT BE JUST AND PROPER TO APPOINT HIM IN ANY POST ESPECIALLY IN DISCIPLINED FORCE. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE SUCH AN APPOINTMENT IS MADE THE RESPONDENT IS LIKELY TO MISUSE HIS POSITION, WHEREAS THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT CONTENDED THAT THE INCIDENT HAPPENED IN 1991 AND THE RESPONDENT NOW IS IN SOUND STATE OF MIND, HE IS FIT TO HOLD ANY POST AND BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THERE IS ONLY A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER HIS CASE FOR APPOINTMENT AND HENCE THE ORDER MAY NOT BE INTERFERED WITH BY THIS COURT. 5. WE CONSIDERED ALL RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND FEEL THE DIRECTION OF THE DIVISION BENCH IS ONLY TO MEDICALLY EXAMINE THE RESPONDENT AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT IS IN SOUND STATE OF MIND THE APPELLANTS MAY CONSIDER HIM FOR ANY APPOINTMENT. 5. WE CONSIDERED ALL RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND FEEL THE DIRECTION OF THE DIVISION BENCH IS ONLY TO MEDICALLY EXAMINE THE RESPONDENT AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT IS IN SOUND STATE OF MIND THE APPELLANTS MAY CONSIDER HIM FOR ANY APPOINTMENT. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE RESPONDENT BE SUBJECTED TO MEDICAL EXAMINATION BY A MEDICAL BOARD CONSISTING OF PSYCHIATRIST AND OTHER EXPERTS AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT HE IS NOT A SUFFERING FROM ANY UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND, THE APPELLANTS MAY CONSIDER HIS CASE FOR APPOINTMENT IN RESPECT OF ANY APPROPRIATE POST. THIS EXERCISE MAY BE DONE WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM TODAY. 6. THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF.