1 wp6816.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6816 OF 2010 Shri. Digamber S/o Bhagwanrao Ghadge Patil ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and another ..RESPONDENT ..... Mr. B.V. Thombre, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S.T. Ghute, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 and 5. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 1st April, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This Court has already indicated that the matter will be disposed of finally, at the stage of admission. 2. Advocate Mr. Thombre for petitioner contends that the petitioner is suffering from disability since childhood and got employment in 1988. He worked for about 12 years thereafter as a permanent employee and then became subject of mental illness on 27.11.2001. He remained mental patient till 02.05.2006 and after recovery on 07.11.2005 went to join duties. At that time, he discovered that he has already been dismissed from service. He states that no charge sheet could have been served by the 2 wp6816.10 petitioner during the period of his mental illness and even if it is presumed some steps have taken by employer, those steps are not sufficient to hold that the petitioner was given proper opportunity. He points out that in family of petitioner there were aged parents, his wife and two children. Because of illness of petitioner. they all got disturbed and hence importance was given to medical treatment of petitioner and his illness could not be communicated to the employer. Reasons for absence was could not be communicated. Alleged paper publication was never noticed by family members. In the alternative, learned Counsel contends that even if family members may have noticed it, they thought it proper to over look it. In this situation, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported at "2009(5) Bom. C.R. 193" ( Madhukar Pandurang Gadade V/s State of Maharashtra and others) and "2010(5) All M.R. 779" ( Edward Swalin D' Cunha V/s Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and another) to urge that as principles of natural justice are not fulfilled and provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1996 are violated, the petitioner needs to be given relief of reinstatement with continuity and back wages. 3. Advocate Mr. Ghute for respondent nos. 4 and 5 and 3 wp6816.10 learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 3 support the impugned order. 4. They pointed out that even before 27.11.2001, the petitioner had absconded but was permitted to join the duties. After 27.11.2001, notices/charge sheet were served upon the petitioner and as there was no response ultimately, the paper publication calling upon him to join back duty was also issued. Thereafter, steps in accordance with the provisions of Discipline and Appeal Rules have been taken and services came to be terminated. They urged that there is nothing on record to show mental illness of the petitioner from 27.11.2001. 5. Only certificate produced by the petitioner is dated 13.05.2006 which is issued by Mental Health Clinic at Aurangabad. That certificate mentions that the petitioner was under treatment of Dr. A.A. Quadri from 03.05.2006 till 13.05.2006 and fit to join the duties from 15.05.2006. Thus, he was not under treatment of Mental Health Clinic or Dr. Quadri prior to 03.05.2006. However, on the basis of history taken, doctor has certified that the petitioner was ill from 27.11.2001 to 02.05.2006. It is stated that history is suggestive of Manic Depressive Psychosis. 4 wp6816.10 6. The material on record therefore does not show that from 27.11.2001 till 02.05.2006, the petitioner was suffering from any mental illness or then the petitioner has failed to prove any efforts made by family members to treat him during that period. 7. This aspect is looked into by the appellate authority namely the Additional Commissioner while passing the impugned order on 30.03.2009. Perusal of that order reveals that the effort to forward petitioner to Medical Board were also made and then time was killed by petitioner by indulging in unnecessary correspondence and office was mislead. In view of these findings and nature of charges, it was obligatory for petitioner to show the places or doctors from where he took treatment for his alleged illness from 27.11.2001 till 02.05.2006. That has not been done. Appellate authority therefore has upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary authority. 8. Perusal of Division Bench judgment of this Court in "Madhukar Pandurang Gadade V/s State of Mahrashtra and others" (supra)" reveals the necessity of adherence of principles of natural justice in such matters. In view of discussion above, it is apparent that principles of natural justice have been followed to the extent possible by the employer. The judgment of Division Bench 5 wp6816.10 of this Court in "Edward Swalin D'Cunha V/s Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and another" (supra) is pressed in to service to show that aims and objects of the Disabilities Act. These aims and objects are also not in dispute. The employer has given necessary opportunity to the petitioner to show his mental illness. That burden the petitioner could not discharged. After suffering adverse order dated 30.10.2004, the petitioner approached the respondent no.2 Minister and on 24.06.2010, the Minister has maintained that order. Minister has also found that the petitioner could not give satisfactory explanation. 9. With these concurrent findings, when the Petition is filed then at least it is necessary to produce relevant material before this Court to show ailment from 2001. That also has not been produced. 10. In this circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The Petition is therefore rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp6816.10