Suresh Chand Vs. DCP (North East) Delhi Police | Case No. 625/1144/2018/12/1304-1305 | Dated: 14.03.2019

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005,

Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 625/1144/2018/12/1304-1305                    Dated: 14.03.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Suresh Chand,

H.No. 922, Gali No. 13,

Block-A, Pehla Pusta,

Sonia Vihar,Delhi-110090.                                 .............. Complainant

                                          Versus              

           

The Deputy Commissioner of Police

(North East District),

Police Station, Delhi Police,

Delhi-110053.                                                     ……...…Respondent

ORDER

The above named complainant, a person with 50%  locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 06.12.2018 submitted that he was working in the post of Asstt. Teacher in Laxmi Memorial Public School, Sonia Vihar.  He was removed from the post because he raised his voice against his exploitation by the school. The Court directed his reinstatement on 16.08.2018 with full back wages. But the Manager of the School started threatening him with the help of anti social elements. Due to which he was not able to join. He filed a complaint with the Sonia Vihar Police Station on 26.09.2018 and 03.11.2018.  He is extremely scared and therefore has requested for providing him security so that he can join his service.

2.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide Notice dated 08.01.2019 followed by reminder dated 06.02.2019 and a hearing on 13.03.2019.

3.      In the meantime Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police-I, North East District, Delhi has filed a report dated 26.02.2019, which reads as under:

“With reference to case No. 625/1144/2018/12813019 dated 17.12.2018 on the subject cited above, it is stated that an enquiry into the matter was conducted through ACP/Khajri Khas which revealed that the complainant was working as an Asstt. Teacher in Laxmi Memorial Public School, 4^th Pusta, Sonia Vihar.  After 2014, he was dismissed by the School Management.  He filed an appeal in the Delhi School Tribunal and he was reinstated.  However, school management did not agree to reappoint him in service. Thus, he filed a contempt petition in the Court.  On 18.09.2018, he went for taking medicine.  In the evening, the owner of the house intimated him that 3-4 unknown persons came in the house and asked about him with dire consequences.  No one has threatened him personally.  The complainant further stated that he would file the complaint to the police if anyone gives him threat in future.  The complaint may be filed please.”

4.      As the Notice of hearing dated 06.02.2019 which was sent to the complainant  through Speed Post was received back from the postal authorities with the remark “incomplete address”, the complainant was contacted on telephone. He confirmed that action taken by the Police as stated in the report dated 26.02.2019.  He was also informed about that the complaint would be disposed of after the hearing on 13.03.2019.  However, the complainant did not appear during the hearing.

5.      Sh. Sunil Kumar, A.S.I. appeared on behalf of the respondent and reiterated the written submissions.  He also produced a copy of the written statement of the complainant given to the police in which he has mentioned that a few days ago some unknown persons enquired about him from the owner of his rental house in his absence.  He therefore suspects that someone may want to cause damage to him.  Presently, he is staying temporarily somewhere and is safe.  Therefore there is no need for any action at present.  He expects action by the Police after the order of the Court on 24.04.2019.  A copy of the said statement has been taken on record.

6.           In view of the status report dated 26.02.2019 of the respondent and the statement of the complainant, the complaint is disposed of.  The complainant may approach the Police if required in future, who shall take appropriate action as required under Section 7 of the Act which provides as under:

“7. (1) The appropriate Government shall take measures to protect persons with disabilities from all forms of abuse, violence and exploitation and to prevent the same, shall—

(a) take cognizance of incidents of abuse, violence and exploitation and provide legal remedies available against such incidents;(b) take steps for avoiding such incidents and prescribe the procedure for its reporting;(c) take steps to rescue, protect and rehabilitate victims of such incidents; and(d) create awareness and make available information among the public.

(2) Any person or registered organisation who or which has reason to believe that an act of abuse, violence or exploitation has been, or is being, or is likely to be committed against any person with disability, may give information about it to the Executive Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such incidents occur.

(3) The Executive Magistrate on receipt of such information, shall take immediate steps to stop or prevent its occurrence, as the case may be, or pass such order as he deems fit for the protection of such person with disability including an order—

(a) to rescue the victim of such act, authorising the police or any organisation working for persons with disabilities to provide for the safe custody or rehabilitation of such person, or both, as the case may be;(b) for providing protective custody to the person with disability, if such person so desires;(c) to provide maintenance to such person with disability.

(4) Any police officer who receives a complaint or otherwise comes to know of abuse, violence or exploitation towards any person with disability shall inform the aggrieved person of— 

(a) his or her right to apply for protection under sub-section (2) and the particulars of the Executive Magistrate having jurisdiction to provide assistance;(b) the particulars of the nearest organisation or institution working for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities;(c) the right to free legal aid; and(d) the right to file a complaint under the provisions of this Act or any other law dealing with such offence:

Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed in any manner as to relieve the police officer from his duty to proceed in accordance with law upon receipt of information as to the commission of a cognizable offence.

(5) If the Executive Magistrate finds that the alleged act or behaviour constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code, or under any other law for the time being in force, he may forward the complaint to that effect to the Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction in the matter”.

7.           Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 14^th day of March, 2019.     

                                                                                     (T.D. Dhariyal )

                     State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Sonu Bhola Vs. DCP (East District), Delhi Police | Case No. 4/469/2013-Wel/CD/3916-17 | Dated:18.01.2018

In the Court of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Persons with Disabilities

(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995]

Case No. 4/469/2013-Wel/CD/3916-17                                           Dated:18.01.2018

In the matter of:

Sh.Sonu Bhola,

S/o Jagan Nath,

R/o A-89, Street No.8,

Jagat Puri, Krishna Nagar,

Delhi-110051.                                                                            .....Complainant     

                                                                      Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police (East),

East District,

I.P. Extension, Patpar Ganj, Institutional Area,

Mandawali Fazalpur,

Delhi-110092.                                                                               ...... Respondent

Present:                         None

Date of hearing:           16.01.2018 

           

ORDER

                  The above named complainant,  a person with locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 29.07.2013 submitted inter alia that his wife gave birth to a baby boy on 01.07.2013 in Ashok Nursing Home (ANH), Krishna Nagar, Delhi.  He was informed by ANH that since the baby boy was low weight i.e. 1.98 Kg, there was need for the child to stay in hospital for few days to manage the treatment.  On 4^th July, 2013 ANH informed the complainant that the baby is serious and needs treatment at higher centre.  ANH discharged the baby and the complainant’s wife (patient) without giving the complete referral document.  The complainant tried to admit the baby in Shanti Mukund, Max Balaji, Kalawati Saran and Gangaram Hospitals one by one, but each hospital denied to admit him.  Finally, he admitted the baby in Holy family Hospital (HFH).  The doctors at HFH were struggling hard to know the exact problem with the baby in absence of the good referral documents.  On 9^th July, 2013 the complainant reached ANH to collect the medical treatment history or case summary of the baby.  Since ANH was not providing the case summary of the baby, the complainant had to call the police through help line No. 100. The PCR van came at around 4.30 PM and Sh. Shive Kumar, IO, PS Krishna Nagar, East District was informed the full situation and the requirement of the documents from AMH.  Thereafter, the IO had a meeting with the people of ANH in the room.  The complainant has alleged that the IO ignored his request and did not help him in getting the case summary/medical treatment documents of the baby from ANH.  It has been also alleged by the complainant that till date Sh. Shive Kumar, IO, Delhi Police has not contacted him even a single time to know the status of his baby and he had not shared any development over the complaint of getting the medical history of his child.  His baby is still struggling at HFH.  The complainant has requested to take some concrete and possible action in the matter at the earliest. 

2.               As there was no information about the conclusion of the investigation by the Police and also the complainant had not followed up the case for long, a hearing was scheduled on 16.01.2018.  Neither the complainant nor the representative of the respondent appeared. The complainant was, however, contacted on his given mobile number 9213953775 and he stated that although his full address was not mentioned in the notice, he did not want to pursue the matter and it be closed.

3.               As the claims and counter claims of the parties have been investigated by the Police and the complainant has not alleged any harassment at this stage, the complaint is closed.

4.               It is however, brought to the notice of the parties that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides for protection to persons with disabilities from abuse, violence and exploitation.   Section 7 of the said act also mandates the appropriate government to take measures to protect persons with disabilities from all forms of abuse, violence and exploitation and to take various measures to prevent the same. Section 7(4) also provides for action to be taken by a Police Officer who receives a complaint or otherwise comes to know about abuse, violence or exploitation towards any person with disability.  Office of the Commissioner of Police: Delhi vide Circular No.28/2017 dated 25.10.2017 has directed all District DCsP to take necessary action to make IOs aware of the provisions of the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and to ensure its effective implementation. A copy of the said circular is enclosed.  It may be ensured that the complainant, who is a person with disability is not deprived of his legitimate rights.

3.             The matter is disposed off accordingly.

4.               Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 18^th  day of January,2018.     

Encl: As above.                                                                                         (T.D. Dhariyal)

                                        State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Vijay Nath Mishra Vs. DCP (North West), Delhi Police | Case No. 4/ 1724/2017-Wel/CD/3841-42 | Dated:12.01.2018

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/ 1724/2017-Wel/CD/3841-42                                  Dated:12.01.2018

In the matter of:

Mr. Vijay Nath Mishra

S/o Parasnath Mishra,

M.B. Road, Shakarpur,

Delhi-110092.                                                                                  .……… Complainant     

                                                                      Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,

North West District,

Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052.                                                              …...…Respondent

 

Date of hearing:           09.01.2018

Present                           Sh. Vijay Nath Mishra, Complainant.

                                          None on behalf of the respondent.

            

ORDER

                The above named complainant, a person with blindness vide his complaint dated 13.07.2017 submitted that  he purchased a plot measuring 150 yards, khasra No. 1030, village Qadi Vihar, Delhi from Sh. Anand Swaroop S/o Sh. Nepal Singh on 28.07.2006.  He also got work done on the plot from time to time.  On 22.06.2017, three unknown persons came to his house.  One of them mentioned his name as Dharmender of Alipur.  He asked him to meet him in the house of Sh. Sudhir Rana with the papers of the plot.  He threatened to kill him if he did not do so.  He wants to do construction work in his plot.  However, he is afraid of those persons.  In June, 2016 one Sh. Jagdish, S/o Sh. Mahender also harassed him and claimed ownership of the plot.  He had filed complaints with S.H.O. (Swaroop Nagar), Delhi.

2.      Reiterating his earlier submissions,  the complainant vide his letter dated 17.11.2017  added that the S.H.O. (Swaroop Nagar), Sh. Bharat Ram Meena did not give much attention to the matter.  The complainant, therefore, requested for an early intervention.

3.      The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 06.07.2017 followed by reminder dated 16.11.2017.  As there was no response from the respondent, a hearing was scheduled on 09.01.2018.

4.      During the hearing on 09.01.2018, the complainant submitted that the case falls under the jurisdiction of Dy. Commissioner of Police (North West District), Ashok Vihar whereas the notice of hearing has been sent to DCP(North District), Civil Lines.  This probably is the reason why the respondent has not been represented in the hearing.  Reiterating his submissions, the complainant stated that the vigilance enquiry conducted by the PG Cell, North West District has already established that the plot belongs to him.  However, because of insufficient support of Police, he is not able to carry out any kind of construction activity in his plot of land measuring 150 Sq. Yards.  He requested that the DCP (North West) may be advised  to provide police personnel to enable him to carry out some construction work in the plot as Sh. Dharmender threatened him and the concerned police officials do not provide him the required support.

5       From the record it is observed that the vigilance enquiry conducted by Inspector (North West) concluded that the complainant is in possession of plot measuring 150 Sq. Yards bearing khasra no. 1030, A- Block, Qadi Vihar, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.  ACP, PG Cell, North West  District in his remarks dated 31.08.2017 also recorded that the S.I. Sajjan Singh of Police Station , Swaroop Nagar conducted the enquiry in a lackadaisical manner.  It supports the contention of the complainant that the local Police personnel have not been providing him the required assistance and support.  Complainant also submitted that fed up with the law enforcing agency and the attitude of the members of the society,  he has approached the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court in Rohini for relief.

6.      Section 7 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 provides for protection of abuse, violence and exploitation of the persons with disabilities and sub-section 4 of Section 7 casts an obligation on a Police Officer who receives a complaint or otherwise comes to know of  abuse, violence or exploitation towards any person with disability to extend necessary support and protection to such a person with disability.  In this regard, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi  vide Circular No. 28/2017 dated 25.10.2017  has directed all the DCPs to take necessary action to make the Inquiry Officers aware of the provisions the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and to ensure its effective implementation. 

7.      Notwithstanding the fact that the complainant has already approached Metropolitan Magistrate Court (Rohini), DCP (North  West), Ashok Vihar is advised to extend necessary support to the complainant to enable him to carry out the construction activity in his plot.  It may also be ensured that the complainant is not harassed, abused, or exploited by any person and his rights are not infringed.

8.      In the light of the above position, the complaint is disposed of.

9.     Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 12^th day of January,  2018.

           (T.D. Dhariyal )

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Shatrughan Nayak Vs. Vijay Manchanda & Anr | Case No. 4/1357/2016-Wel./CD/ 3664-66 | Dated: 02.01.2018

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

  

Case No. 4/1357/2016-Wel./CD/ 3664-66                                             Dated: 02.01.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. Shatrughan Nayak

399, Sector-9,

R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022                                         ................ Petitioner

                                          Versus                         

Sh. Vijay Manchanda,

Proprietor of Vandna International,

A-34, Subhadra Colony,

Near Shastri Nagar Metro Station,

New Delhi-110035                                                          ………...…Respondent No. 1

The Dy. Commissioner of Police,(Central District)

Office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police,

Delhi Police, New Delhi-110002                                     ………...…Respondent No. 2

           

                   ORDER

          The above named complainant, vide his complaint dated 22.06.2016 received through the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 20.07.2016 submitted that he is a person with blindness and had been working in a Private Company, Vandana International, Karol Bagh, New Delhi of Sh. Vijay Manchanda for last 11 years.  After 8 years of service, Sh. Manchanda cleverly trapped him and some other employees of the same company in a corruption conspiracy.  Sh. Manchanda opened his and other employees salary accounts in Dhanlakshmi Bank, Karol Bagh and took a loan of Rs. 40 Lakh in his name against fake gold by making him sign the papers.  Thereafter, they were sent to Tihar Jail.  After release on bail, he protested against cheating and requested Sh. Manchanda to pay the loan that he had taken from the bank in complainant’s name.  The complainant also alleged that Sh. Manchanda asked the complainant to prepare fake bills of jewellery box makers.  When he refused, he was asked not to come to office and he threatened him that he would get his bail cancelled and send him to jail again.  Sh. Manchanda also did not clear his dues.  The complainant requested for justice.

2.      The complainant was taken up with the respondents vide communication dated 12.08.2016, followed by reminders dated 10.10.2016 and 30.11.2016. 

3.      Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 05.12.2016 informed that an inquiry in the matter was conducted through ACP, Karol Bagh.  During the inquiry the complainant stated that a case had already been registered against the alleged by the Crime Branch regarding the cheating and the case is pending in the Trial Court.  As regards pending dues of the complainant, he has been advised to file a complaint in the Labour Court.  Hence no more action was required by the police. 

4.      Thereafter, a hearing was scheduled on 23.01.2017 which could not be held as the respondent No. 2 informed that due to full day rehearsal of Republic Day Celebration on 2017, all the officers would be busy and therefore, another date may be fixed for hearing.  The next hearing was scheduled on 28.12.2017. 

5.      During the hearing on 28.12.2017, Sh. Shiv Dayal, ACP, Karol Bagh on behalf of respondent No. 2 submitted that the complainant Sh. Shatrughan Nayak and opposite party i.e. Sh. Vijay Manchanda, the employer of the complainant along with others were arrested by Economic Offence Wing in case FIR No. 11/2014 u/s 420/120B IPC and the case is pending trial in the Tis Hazari Court.  Police has no role to play in the matter as no cognizable offence is made out of the complaint of the complainant.

6.      The complainant reiterated his written submissions and requested that directions may be issued to Sh. Vijay Manchanda to pay his outstanding dues of Rs. 72000/- on account of the salary for 6 months and other expenses that he had to incur for local travel and also from Orissa (Brahampur District).  The complainant further submitted that he does not have an appointment letter or evidence for receipt of salary as he and all other employees were being paid their salary in cash.  However, he has experience certificates for having worked in the shop of Sh. Vijay Manchanda i.e. Vandana International/Vandana Products. He emailed the copies of the experience certificates dated 30.08.2003, 14.03.2007 and 08.07.2011 which indicate that the complainant worked in the said firms.

7.      Sh. Dilip who appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1 informed that a reply to the hearing notice addressed to ACP, Karol Bagh with copy to this court has been sent through the Advocate on 27.12.2017.  He also stated that Sh. Vijay Manchanda is not in the town.  The decision about payment of the dues of the complainant can be taken only by Sh. Manchanda.  He also confirmed that he too does not have appointment letter and gets his salary in cash.

8.      The relevant contents of the reply of respondent No. 1 are as under:

“(i)     The contents of the complaint under reply are totally false, flimsy and frivolous.  It may be noted that the undersigned and Shatrughan Nayak are both co-accused along with 22(Twenty Two) others in F.I.R bearing number 11 of 2014 registered at Police Station: Economic Offence Wing(EOW), Delhi Police under section 120-B read with Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.  The Charge-Sheet in the said matter has already been filed by the Investigating Officer and the matter is sub-judice before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. It is further submitted that, whether the undersigned and Mr. Nayak are innocent or guilty for commission or perpetration of the alleged Crime may only be decided by the concerned Court of the Ld. CMM after appreciating the evidence before it.  Mr. Nayak by way of present Complaint is trying to hoodwink the Court and other statutory authorities and is unsuccessfully attempting to create a defence in his favour through a Forum, which is not e4ven seized of the matter.  It is submitted that the same is impermissible under the Law and thus the undersigned reserves his right to initiate criminal proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against Mr. Nayak for trying to interfere in the administration of justice.

(ii).     Further, Mr. Nayak has approached the Disabilities Commission as he alleges to be a person with Disability.  It may be noted that the undersigned is also a disabled person with visual imparity of 90 %(Ninety percent).  A copy of the disability certificate issued by the competent authority is appended herewith for your kind reference.

(iii)     Mr. Nayak has also alleged in his complaint that the undersigned has withheld his lawful dues towards his supposed salary, however, he has failed to place on record the employment/appointment letter or any other document that can support his claim.  Assuming though not admitting that the allegation has any merit in it, the said claim would fall in the exclusive jurisdiction of a Civil Court established under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and thus a complaint before the Police or Disability Commission in this regard is not maintainable.

(iv)    In view of the submissions mader hereinabove, it is abundantly clear that the contents of the Complaint filed by Mr. Nayak don’t have any iota of merit in it and prima facie the same does not indicate commission of any Cognizable Criminal Offence and thus, it is humbly requested that the present Complaint may be closed in terms of the procedure established by Law.

(v)     However, the undersigned is ready and willing to co-operate to any extent, in case your good offices desire to investigate the matter any further. 

(vi)    For any other/further clarification(s) or assistance, please feel free to revert.”

9.      Section 7 of Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act provides that: 

“7. (1) The appropriate Government shall take measures to protect persons with disabilities from all forms of abuse, violence and exploitation and to prevent the same, shall—
 (a) take cognizance of incidents of abuse, violence and exploitation and provide legal remedies available against such incidents;(b) take steps for avoiding such incidents and prescribe the procedure for its reporting;(c) take steps to rescue, protect and rehabilitate victims of such incidents; and(d) create awareness and make available information among the public. (2) Any person or registered organisation who or which has reason to believe that an act of abuse, violence or exploitation has been, or is being, or is likely to be committed against any person with disability, may give information about it to the Executive Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such incidents occur. (3) The Executive Magistrate on receipt of such information, shall take immediate steps to stop or prevent its occurrence, as the case may be, or pass such order as he deems fit for the protection of such person with disability including an order— 

(a) to rescue the victim of such act, authorising the police or any organisation working for persons with disabilities to provide for the safe custody or rehabilitation of such person, or both, as the case may be; (b) for providing protective custody to the person with disability, if such person so desires; (c) to provide maintenance to such person with disability.

 (4) Any police officer who receives a complaint or otherwise comes to know of abuse, violence or exploitation towards any person with disability shall inform the aggrieved person of— 

(a) his or her right to apply for protection under sub-section (2) and the particulars of the Executive Magistrate having jurisdiction to provide assistance; (b) the particulars of the nearest organisation or institution working for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities; (c) the right to free legal aid; and (d) the right to file a complaint under the provisions of this Act or any other law dealing with such offence: Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed in any manner as to relieve the police officer from his duty to proceed in accordance with law upon receipt of information as to the commission of a cognizable offence.

 (5) If the Executive Magistrate finds that the alleged act or behaviour constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code, or under any other law for the time being in force, he may forward the complaint to that effect to the Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction in the matter.”

10.    Section 89 and 90 of Act provide for punishment for contravention of Provisions of the Act or rules or regulations made thereunder by any person and by companies respectively.  The said sections are reproduced below:-

 “89. Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or of any rule made thereunder shall for first contravention be punishable with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees and for any subsequent contravention with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees.
 90. (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
 Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—
 (a) “company” means anybody corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.”

11.    While the Court of Ld. CMM, it will be deciding the case before him/her taking into account the facts of the case and relevant provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016, I would advise respondent No. 1 to release and pay the outstanding dues if any, to the complainant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order and inform this court by

31.01.2018 failing which the Executive Magistrate shall investigate the matter and submit his/her findings by 28.02.2018 whether respondent No. 1 owes any amount of money to the complainant on account of his salary for the period he worked for respondent No. 1 the appropriate forum/authority in addition for taking action for punishing the respondent No. 1 u/s. 89 and 90 of the Act. 

12.    Respondent No. 1 shall inform respondent No. 2 and this court by 06.02.2018 the date of making the payment to the complainant. In case no intimation is received by respondent No. 2 about the payment of dues by the said date, respondent No. 2 shall inform Executive Magistrate to proceed to inquire the matter as.

13.         Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 02^nd day of January, 2018.     

                                                                                         (T.D. Dhariyal)

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

View the digitally signed PDF Order here: