JUDGMENT : Irshad Ali,J. 1. Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Vanya Bharadwaj, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- "A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI to quash the order dated 08.01.2004 passed by opposite party No.1 (Annexure No.19); Order dated 05.07.2002 passed by opposite party No.2 (Annexure No.17) and the order dated 16.12.2001 passed by opposite party No.3 (Annexure No.15). A-(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned discharge orders dated 15.05.2005 discharging the petitioner from service of company on medical ground after summoning its original from the opposite parties. A-(ii) a writ, order or mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay arrear of salary to petitioner and interest on same at rate of 18% p.a. compounded annually. B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS to directing the opposite parties to take any action in pursuance to impugned order. C) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS not to reduce the pay of the petitioner and further pay the petitioner the pay his salary in Grade I without treating him reverted. D) Issue an appropriate direction to the opposite parties to pay the petitioner the allowances to the petitioner in Grade I of the Administrative Officer. E) Issue an ad-interim order in favour of the petitioner. F) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Development Officer in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow, who was suffering from a disease of mental disorder. He was examined by the physicians of K.G.M.U. The diagnosis was that he was suffering from disease of Bipolar Affective Order. Vide order dated 13.9.1993, he was suspended for certain act of omission on this part and on 16.12.1993, charge-sheet was issued. Thereafter, on 4.4.1994, preliminary hearing was done. 4. The petitioner sought appointment of his defence assistant vide letter dated 18.4.1994. Subsequent selection of defence assistant could not materialise either on the ground of their illness or on the ground that companies did not permit them to act as the defence assistant. 5. Thereafter, on 4.4.1994, preliminary hearing was done. 4. The petitioner sought appointment of his defence assistant vide letter dated 18.4.1994. Subsequent selection of defence assistant could not materialise either on the ground of their illness or on the ground that companies did not permit them to act as the defence assistant. 5. On 25.8.1995, the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry without there being any defence assistant on behalf of the petitioner, who being a case of mental disorder and could not conduct his case. The enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report which did not contain any date. 6. The punishing authority awarded major punishment to the petitioner reducing him by three steps in scale in Grade-I and II, fitting the petitioner at a basic pay of Rs.5,050/-in the lower grade. The suspension period was not to be taken as period spent on duty, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant General Manager (respondent No.2), which was rejected on the basis of comments of respondent No.3 and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Memorial before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company, who rejected the same, filed under Rule 40. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner, by passing an order of discharge, was discharged from duties on the ground of medical with immediate effect. 9. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry was conducted without providing defence assistant to the petitioner, therefore his submission is that the enquiry is ex-parte in nature and same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Next submission is that on the basis of ex-parte enquiry report, the impugned orders have been passed, reducing the petitioner on minimum pay scale, therefore, the order being based on ex-parte enquiry report, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submitted that the appeal filed against the order of punishment was rejected without considering the fact that the enquiry was ex-parte in nature without providing defence assistant to the petitioner, therefore, the appellate order also suffers from vices of principles of natural justice. 10. It is submitted that the impugned order of discharge is wholly without jurisdiction. No employee can be discharged on medical grounds. 10. It is submitted that the impugned order of discharge is wholly without jurisdiction. No employee can be discharged on medical grounds. He placed reliance upon Section 47 (Nondiscrimination in Government employment) of the Act known as the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon paragraph-20 of the judgment in the case of Anil Kumar Mahajan Vs. Union of India & others [Civil Appeal No.4944 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No.26400 of 2010], wherein Section 47 of the aforesaid Act of 1995 was considered. 12. On the other hand, Ms. Vanya Bharadwaj, Advocate invited attention of this Court on the enquiry report and submitted that time to time, defence assistant was changed due to which, no sanction was granted to the petitioner for appointment of defence assistant. She further submitted that enquiry was done after giving full opportunity to the petitioner to examine the witnesses and other relevant documents, therefore, her submission is that the enquiry is not ex-parte, it is after giving fullest opportunity to the petitioner. In regard to the discharge order, her submission is that on the ground of medical disabilities, the petitioner was not able to perform his duties and Section 47 of the Act of 1995 is not attracted to the case in hand. 13. I have considered the rival submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as law report cited by petitioner's counsel. 14. For deciding the controversy involved in the present writ petition, provision of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is being quoted below :- "47. Non-discrimination in Government employment .-(1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service: Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. (2)(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section" 15. Relevant paragraph-20 of the judgment rendered in the case of Anil Kumar Mahajan (Supra) is being quoted below :- "20. It is informed at the bar that in normal course the appellant would have superannuated from service on 31st July, 2012. In that view of the matter, now there is no question of reinstatement of the appellant though he may be entitled for consequential benefits including arrears of pay. Having regard to the facts and finding given above, we have no other option but to set aside the order of compulsory retirement of the appellant dated 15th October, 2007 passed by the respondents; the order dated 22nd December, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.No.2784/2008 and the impugned order dated 20th April, 2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C)No.2622/2010 and the case is remitted to the respondents with a direction to treat the appellant continued in the service till the date of his superannuation. The appellant shall be paid full salary minus the subsistence allowance already received for the period from the date of initiation of departmental proceeding on the ground that he was suffering from mental illness till the date of compulsory retirement. The appellant shall also be provided with full salary from the date of compulsory retirement till the date of superannuation in view of the first and second proviso to Section 47 of the Act, 1995. If the appellant has already been superannuated, he will also be entitled to full retiral benefits counting the total period in service. The benefits shall be paid to the appellant within three months, else the respondents will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the amount was due, till the actual payment." 16. The benefits shall be paid to the appellant within three months, else the respondents will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the amount was due, till the actual payment." 16. On perusal of the provision aforesaid as well as judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is crystal clear that the person who attained disability during the service period, cannot be discharged on medical grounds, thus, in the opinion of the Court, discharge of the petitioner from service is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal in nature. The petitioner would have been engaged in some alternative service or if the post was not available, then on the basis of supernumerary post created for the said purpose. 17. In regard to the enquiry, which is conducted against the petitioner in discharge of duties, I perused the enquiry report, which is at page-48 and on its perusal, it is evident that the petitioner gave three names alternatively for its approval but the same was not approved and the enquiry proceeding continued without appointing the defence assistant in the matter of the petitioner. 18. On perusal of paragraph-2 of the enquiry report, it is crystal clear that the enquiry officer proceeded to conduct enquiry by giving notice to the petitioner who was not in a position to participate in the enquiry due to his mental disorder. On the basis of ex-parte enquiry report, without appointing defence assistant, the enquiry officer proceeded to submit the enquiry report to the punishing authority, who on the basis of ex-parte enquiry report, proceeded to pass the impugned order on 6.12.2001, whereby the petitioner has been penalised by reducing by three steps in scale in Grade-I and II, fitting the petitioner at a basic pay of Rs.5,050/-in the lower grade. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assistant General Manager (appellate authority), United India Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No.2), who has nowhere considered that the petitioner was not provided the defence assistant during the course of enquiry, therefore, the enquiry was ex-parte in nature, the basis, which has been made to pass the impugned order. 19. In the memo of appeal, the petitioner took a specific ground in paragraph-C that in conducting the enquiry, three persons namely, Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia (Oriental Insurance Company), Mr. Sudhakar Tripathi (Oriental Insurance Company) and Mr. 19. In the memo of appeal, the petitioner took a specific ground in paragraph-C that in conducting the enquiry, three persons namely, Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia (Oriental Insurance Company), Mr. Sudhakar Tripathi (Oriental Insurance Company) and Mr. B.N. Seth (National Insurance Company) were contacted on different dates for being defence assistant for the petitioner, but the appellate authority has not take care in deciding the appeal and has rejected outrightly vide order dated 5.7.2002. 20. Thereafter, after dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner filed Memorial before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, United India Insurance Company Ltd., 24, Whites Road, Chennai, which has also been rejected vide order dated 8.1.2004, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 4.2.2004. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director also did not consider the claim setup by the petitioner in his Memorial, therefore, the order passed by him also suffers from vices of principles of natural justice due to non-consideration of claim setup by the petitioner. 21. The ground of the respondents that the enquiry is not an ex-parte eniquiry and it is after giving fullest opportunity of hearing to the petitioner appears to be fallacious. On consideration, it is found that there is violation of principles of natural justice in not providing the defence assistant to the petitioner to setup his claim. 22. In regard to the discharge from service, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondent that on medical grounds, the employee can be discharged from service, I perused the provision contained under Section 47 of the Act of 1995 and the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. This argument also suffers from vices of non-consideration of the provisions contained under the aforesaid Act and the judgment relied upon. 23. After consideration of totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 08.01.2004 passed by opposite party No.1 (Annexure No.19), order dated 05.07.2002 passed by opposite party No.2 (Annexure No.17) and the order dated 6.12.2001 passed by opposite party No.3 (Annexure No.15) are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 24. It is however provided that the petitioner shall be provided all consequential benefits, which are applicable to the post, which he was holding prior to initiation of disciplinary proceeding. 25. No order as to costs.