Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2045 (DEL)

Indraj Singh v. UOI

2013-10-23

DEEPA SHARMA, GITA MITTAL

body2013
JUDGMENT : Gita Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner in this case has prayed for a direction of this court to conduct a Court of Inquiry qua examining and giving opinion as to whether the condition of the petitioner is attributable or aggravated by his service conditions. It appears that while deployed at Tripura between 26th January, 2001 to 11th February, 2001, the petitioner was treated in the Battalion Headquarters at Nalkata as a suspected case of PF Malaria. Upon discharge on 11th February, 2001, he was advised line rest for two days. The petitioner has submitted before us that his condition did not improve and on 20th February, 2001 he had applied for 60 days earned leave for “self treatment”. This application was processed by the Commandant as well as Dr.B.N.Das. The petitioner also submits that he had been advised to take leave and for treatment in some good hospital for the reason that there was no good facility available within reach at the petitioner’s place of posting. The petitioner was also advised not to proceed alone on sick leave to his own station and was advised to search for a person of his own station who could accompany him upto his house. He has claimed before us that HC Budhram who belongs to Jaipur was requested by the petitioner and had accompanied him to his home town. The petitioner submits that the earned leave was sanctioned only after the intervention by Dr.B.N.Das on 8th March, 2001. It is the petitioner’s contention that all these circumstances clearly establish that the petitioner developed the disease while on bonafide duty and that he was not well when he proceeded on leave as advised. 2. Accompanied by HC Budhram the petitioner was able to reach his house only on 11th March, 2001. Without any delay on 13th March, 2001, the petitioner was taken to SMS Hospital, Jaipur as he was feeling severe headache and pain in spinal cord accompanied with the blockage of his urinary passage. The petitioner has submitted that he remained unconscious for two days and thereafter felt paralysed in lower half portion of his body. This position has continued thereafter. 3. On 19th April, 2001, an application for leave was sent on behalf of the petitioner to the Unit. The petitioner has submitted that he remained unconscious for two days and thereafter felt paralysed in lower half portion of his body. This position has continued thereafter. 3. On 19th April, 2001, an application for leave was sent on behalf of the petitioner to the Unit. On 6th August, 2001, the petitioner was brought from Jaipur and he received treatment at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi till 6th October, 2002. 4. On 22nd November, 2005, the petitioner applied for the inquiry about his disease and for the payment of Seema Prahari Bima Yojna (SPBY) as well as Hard Area lump-sum grant. 5. The Court of Inquiry was directed by an order passed on 14th August, 2006. A man Court of Inquiry was conducted by Sh.M.P.S.Rana, Deputy Commandant on 1st November, 2006. 6. The petitioner submits that this Inquiry was misconceived and proceeded on a presumption as if the petitioner was suffering from Pulmonary Tuberculosis which was incorrect. 7. In this regard, our attention has been drawn to the report dated 18th June, 2002 submitted by Dr.(Prof.) D.S.Mathur with regard to the petitioner’s condition in reference to the letter dated 7th May, 2002. A perusal of the report would show that Dr.D.S.Mathur had diagnosed sickness of the petitioner as a case of ‘tubercular arachnoiditis’. The report mentions that the petitioner was on anti tubercular treatment for the last one and a half years. 8. The respondents also appear to have passed an order dated 14th August, 2006 directing another one man Court of Inquiry. On 1st November, 2006, such Court of Inquiry was conducted by Sh.M.P.S.Rana, Deputy Commandant. 9. The petitioner complains that the concerned doctor who had seen him for the first time, namely, Dr.B.N.Das was not examined. He also points out that HC Budhram who had accompanied the petitioner from Tripura to Jaipur was also not examined. Without examining these material witnesses, the respondents have arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner’s disease was not attributable to his service condition and that the disability which resulted to him was not caused during the government duty. 10. It is noteworthy that according to the respondents, the petitioner received treatment at the Composite Hospital, Tekanpur between 6th October, 2002 to 2nd November, 2004. The petitioner has physically reported to the Battalion Headquarters, 126, BSF, Nalkata on 3rd January, 2005. 11. 10. It is noteworthy that according to the respondents, the petitioner received treatment at the Composite Hospital, Tekanpur between 6th October, 2002 to 2nd November, 2004. The petitioner has physically reported to the Battalion Headquarters, 126, BSF, Nalkata on 3rd January, 2005. 11. The opinion of the Court of Inquiry records that there is no physical evidence that his disability was caused during government duty hence it was opined that no question arose for providing him benefit of Seema Prahari Bima Yojna or the Hard Area lump-sum grant. 12. The prayer in the instant writ petition is to the effect that given the omissions in the court of Inquiry as noticed above and mentioned in the writ petition, the respondents are required to be directed to conduct a court of Inquiry afresh giving full opportunity to the petitioner to place the record of his treatment and disease and also after examining the material witnesses. We are of the opinion that such an inquiry is essential to effectively adjudicate upon the claim of the petitioner for grant of the aforenoticed amounts as well as the computation of any other service element or financial benefit which may be admissible to a person who was disabled on account of any cause which may be held to be attributable to his service conditions. 13. In view of the above, we direct as follows: (i) The respondents shall appoint a Court of Inquiry afresh which shall examine the circumstances and cause leading to the petitioner’s sickness and medical condition. (ii) The Court of Inquiry shall also give adequate opportunity to the petitioner to place such medical record or other evidence which would facilitate the work of the Court of Inquiry. (iii) The respondents shall ensure that all evidence relevant for arriving at a conclusion with regard to the petitioner’s condition at the relevant time is brought before the court of Inquiry. The complete record of the petitioner’s sickness and treatment shall also be produced before the Court of Inquiry. (iv) The appointment of the Court of Inquiry shall be effected within three weeks from today. (v) The respondents may consider posting of a medical specialist having expertise in the matter as part of the Court of Inquiry. (vi) The report of the Court of Inquiry shall be submitted within four months from the date of commencement of proceedings. (iv) The appointment of the Court of Inquiry shall be effected within three weeks from today. (v) The respondents may consider posting of a medical specialist having expertise in the matter as part of the Court of Inquiry. (vi) The report of the Court of Inquiry shall be submitted within four months from the date of commencement of proceedings. Copy thereof shall be furnished to the petitioner. (vii) The petitioner shall be at liberty to invoke legal remedy, if aggrieved by the inquiry report. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.