Dr. Ram Kishan Vs. The Director, SCERT | Case No. 2127/1023/2021/02/1855-56 | Dated: 04/10/2021

 In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

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

Phone-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 2127/1023/2021/02/1855-56                              Dated: 04/10/21                

In the matter of:

Dr. Ram Kishan,
H.No. 224, Sarai Pipal Thala,
Near Adarsh Nagar, 
Delhi-110033.
(Email ID: ramkishan.diet@gmail.com)                    …………..Complainant 

Versus

The Director,
State Council of Educational Research and Training,
Varun Marg, Block-C, Defence Colony,
New Delhi-110024
(Email: dir12scert@gmail.com)             ……………..Respondent 

Date of Hearing: 27.09.2021

Present: Dr. Ram Kishan, complainant
Sh. A.K. Goel, Deputy Director and
Sh. Mahesh, Section Officer on behalf of respondent

ORDER

Dr. Ram Kishan, the complainant, a person with 80% locomotor disability and Assistant Professor, DIET, Keshav Puram vide his complaint dated 23.02.2021, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act, 2016 herein after referred to as the Act, inter-alia alleged that he was granted MACP w.e.f. 06.12.2018 instead of 01.06.2014 after 03 years and 06 months. He also alleged that he was compelled for re-evaluation of his disability certificate and is being continuously harassed by SCERT. 

2. The matter was taken up with SCERT vide letter dated 08.03.2021 and followed by reminders dated 13.4.2021 and 19.4.2021.  Vide reply dated 14.06.2021, the respondent submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were processed against the complainant with the approval of the competent authority and the date of MACP was deferred as per the recommendations of the DSC.  Competent authority also approved re-examination of physical disability of the complainant.  It was further submitted that the complainant is habitual of non-cooperating with the office.

3. The reply of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant. In response, the complainant filed a rejoinder dated 23.07.2021 that he was not satisfied with the reply of the respondent.    

4. Upon considering the response dated 14.6.2021 & 10.8.2021 of the respondent and rejoinder dated 23.7.2021 & 03.09.2021 of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 14.09.2021. 

5. Vide ROP dated 15.09.2021, the respondent was directed to conduct an inquiry and come out if the complainant can be granted MACP with effect from 01.06.2014 and if so, the actual financial implications thereof to the department.  Regarding issue of medical re-examination, the respondent as a department should consider the necessity of the same and take this issue administratively as per existing rules/norms.  The court also directed the department to investigate/inquire about the representations/grievances of the complainant and give him a personal hearing by the concerned authority, so that he can represent his case which can be resolved accordingly.   

6. During the hearing on 27.09.2021, the respondent submitted letter dated 27.09.2021 reiterating their submissions in detail pertaining to First Financial Up-gradation under MACP Scheme in respect of the complainant. 

7. In this regard kind attention was invited to point 2 of DoPT OM No. 22011/04.2007-Estt.(D) dated 21-11-2016 which states that “Questions have been raised by ministries and Departments asking whether this is applicable in the case of ‘Censure’ also. In this regard, it is reiterated that paragraphs 7(d), 7(f) and 7(g) are applicable in all the penalties under CCS (CCA) Rules including the minor penalty of Censure as well which no currency has been prescribed, it would mean that as per para 7(g), if the DPC considers the officer fit for promotion notwithstanding the award of censure, he can be promoted without referring to the currency of penalty”.

8. Para 7(g) of the said OM states that “In assessing the suitability of the officer on whom a penalty has been imposed, the DPC will take into account the circumstances leading to the imposition of the penalty and decide whether in the light of general service records of the officer and the fact of imposition of penalty, the officer should be considered for promotion. The DPC, after due consideration, has authority to assess the officer as ‘unfit’ for promotion. However, where the DPC considers that despite the penalty the officer is suitable for promotion, the officer will be actually promoted only after the currency of the penalty is over (paragraph 13 of DoPT OM dated 10-04-1989)”.

9. In the instant matter penalty of ‘Censure’ was imposed which has no currency. Since penalty of ‘Censure’ has no currency & as per 7(g) the officer can be actually promoted only after the currency of penalty is over, Dr. Ram Kishan was granted Ist Financial Up-gradation under MACP Scheme from the date of issue of order imposing penalty of ‘Censure’ on him. It is very much clear that Ist Financial Up-gradation under MACP Scheme can not be granted before the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings against the employee. Hence Ist Financial Up-gradation under MACP Scheme was granted w.e.f. date of penalty i.e 07.12.2017.

10. It was submitted that no discrimination was made against Dr. Ram Kishan, Asstt. Professor on the grounds of his disability. The action has been taken as per rules. 

11. During the course of hearing, complainant reiterated that the respondent deliberately delayed the disciplinary proceedings against him by more than 3 years despite the fact that it should have been concluded within timeframe of 6 months as prescribed by various circulars/orders of CVC, which consequently caused delay in granting of MACP. The matter has been examined at length and taking into account the submissions given by SCERT as well as information/record available in the file, it was found that the respondent department is not solely responsible for delay in completing the proceedings of the inquiry against the complainant. No doubt there were some delay due to administrative reasons viz. change of Inquiry Officer etc., it was also delayed because of non-cooperation of the charged officer i.e. the complainant viz. seeking extension of time for submitting his reply and later demanding Hindi version of charge-sheet and other documents. The complainant could have asked for the same at initial stage. The same was also observed by the CIC in its order dated 19.08.2015 which clearly states:

 (i) “Though, an employee facing disciplinary charges does not have any moral or legal right to skip the inquiry or defy the process of inquiry and go on filing plethora of RTI applications seeking information not related to allegation against him, but to harass the officers who he suspect to have complained or gave evidence or provided information or took action against him. 

(ii) The RTI is not a rendezvous for suspended employees or those erring personnel facing inquiries to serve their personal interests in protecting their misconduct or preventing the authorities from proceeding with penal proceedings enquiring into misconduct. 

(iii) The Commission directs the appellant to face the inquiry with all material he has and cooperate with the inquiry officer to complete the process in reasonable time.”

12. After due deliberations and discussions, taking due cognisance of submissions made by the complainant & the respondent, it is observed that the respondent department i.e. SCERT besides examining all available records should have completed the administrative actions within the prescribed time frame.  The respondent should have tried to minimise the delay in completing the inquiry, which in the subject case did not happen. Undue delay is unfortunate.

13. It is recommended that the respondent should be careful in future while dealing with such a time bound case especially involving person with disabilities.  Besides, Director, SCERT is advised to dispose of all the representations submitted by the complainant during the course of personal hearing given by him to the complainant and ensure that no discrimination is made against the complainant. 

14. The matter is disposed of accordingly.

15. This court be informed of the action taken by the respondent within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of RPwD Act, 2016. 

16. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 04th day of October, 2021.

 

 (Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities 

Ms. Rachna Vs. The Principal, Mt. Columbus School & Anr. | Case No. 1284/1111/2019/11/1813-15 | Dated: 28-09-2021

 In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundri Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-02

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

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 1284/1111/2019/11/1813-15                              Dated:28-09-21

In the matter of:

Ms. Rachna,
1280, Pushp Vihar, Sector-03,  
New Delhi – 110017.     ................ Complainant
    
Versus

The Principal,  
Mt. Columbus School, 
C-Block, Dakshinpuri, Near Madangir Market,
New Delhi-110062.               ..............…Respondent No.1
The Director,
Directorate of Education, 
GNCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054.               ..............…Respondent No.2

ORDER

The above named complainant, Ms. Rachna, a person with 70% locomotor disability vide her complaint dated 07.11.2019 alleged that she was harassed by the Principal, Mount Columbus School, where she was an employee as a Music Teacher on contract basis. 

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent No. 1 vide show cause notice dated 15.11.2019.  The brief facts of the case were mentioned in the Interim Order dated 12.08.2021.

 3. Vide ROP dated 24.12.2019, this court observed that relieving the complainant before completion of her tenure of six months without issuing any warning letter or notice is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. Respondent No. 1 was directed to maintain status quo ante and let the complainant work till she completes six months. Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi was impleaded as Respondent No. 2 and was directed to constitute a committee to enquire into the matter and submit the report bringing out the facts.

4. Respondent No. 2 submitted the inquiry report dated 26.02.2021, exhaustively bringing out the facts in a chronological manner. Vide ROP dated 26.03.2021, the school authorities were directed to submit clarifications on Point No. 4 , 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the inquiry report submitted by the Directorate of Education. 

5. After due deliberations during the course of several hearings on the matter, following were recommended vide ROP dated 09.04.2021:-

(i)  The school authorities need to clarify the points raised by Dte. of Education and this Court by 16.04.2021.

(ii) The Dte. of Education to go through the sanctioned establishment of posts of teachers and staff of the school and ascertain if there is provision of a permanent post of music teacher.

(iii) Post receipt of the response from the School/Respondent No. 1, Dte. of Education was to submit final recommendations to this Court as per existing guidelines/rules. 

6. Vide submission dated 02.08.2021, the representative of Respondent No. 2 reiterated that the complainant was appointed on 06.07.2019 on Temporary basis for a period of 6 months and was not on regular or permanent basis. There was no discrimination with the complainant. There had never been any violation on the part of the Respondent School but always acted in good faith in accordance with the rules. 

7. The court reserved the final recommendations in the subject case till receipt of response from Directorate of Education, GNCTD. 

8. Directorate of Education, GNCTD vide their e-mail dated 22.09.2021 submitted that recruitment of employees in private unaided recognised schools, other than minority school is governed by Rule 96 to Rule 106 of DSEAR and among the aforesaid rules there is no provision for appointing teachers on adhoc basis.  Further, the recruitment to the post of the teachers in the private unaided recognised schools shall be according to such posts created/formulated by the DOE and whose RRs have been duly enacted and published in the Gazette.  It is also implicit in Rule 101 of the DSEAR, 1973 that recruitment to part time teachers other than female teachers in the primary schools shall not be lawful.  

9. It was further added by DOE that the post of Music Teacher is a regular post and teachers are appointed on regular basis in schools under DOE, GNCT of Delhi and all private aided/unaided recognised schools whereas it is taught as one of the subject.  However, it is not a compulsory subject.  It is relevant to mention that in the submission of school against the complainant was that she was appointed on temporary basis for a period of 6 months only and that she was aware of the same and she was employed for a short term period and her employment is not regular or permanent, does not augur well as per DSEAR, 1973.  

10. Further, the services of an employee of private unaided school can be terminated only with the approval of Director (Education) as per Section 8(2) of DSEAR, 1973 read with Rule 120(2) of DSEAR, 1973 for violation of the Code of Conduct by the teacher as specified in Rule 123 of DSEAR, 1973 and after following the due procedure as envisaged in Rule 117 to 120 of DSEAR, 1973 and the protection of Section 8(2) of DSEAR, 1973 is applicable for those employees whose recruitment is done in accordance with the provisions of DSEAR, 1973 on the post for which they are found eligible as per the qualification mentioned in the notified RRs.

11. In the present case, the school and the complainant knew irregularities in appointment.  The DOE has no role to play in such type of matters which accelerates the illegalities.  However, the said school management failed to adhere to the provisions of the DSEAR, 1973 in appointment and termination of the complainant for which a Show Cause Notice had already been issued to the school authorities.

12. In view of the facts of the case, submissions of the complainant & respondents, existing rules & regulations on the subject and the observations given in the Interim Order, the following is recommended:-

(i) It is observed that the rules and regulations were not followed by the school authorities as per the DSEAR, 1973 regarding appointment of the complainant who is a Person with Disabilities, as Music Teacher. Moreover, procedure was also not followed for discontinuing the appointment of the complainant which is arbitrary and discriminatory, specially the complainant being a PwD. As per RPwD Act, 2016, the complainant is to be allowed to continue to work as Music Teacher in the Mt. Columbus School.

(ii) DOE to take appropriate action with reference to Show Cause Notice issued to the School Authorities as per DSEAR, 1973. 

13. The case is disposed of accordingly.  

14. An Action Taken Report be submitted to this Court within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order as required under Section 81 of the RPwD Act, 2016.

15. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 28th day of September, 2021. 

           (Ranjan Mukherjee)

                      State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities 

Ajay Kumar Vs. Principal Secretary, Planning Deptt GNCTD | Case No.2246/1021/2021/06/1811-12 | Dated: 28-09-2021

 

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-110002

Phone: 011-23216003-04, 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.2246/1021/2021/06/1811-12             Dated:28-09-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. Ajay Kumar 
H.No. 30, Sharda Niketan, 
Delhi-110034
Email ID: karan.vohra5@gmail.com      …………Complainant

Versus
The Principal Secretary,
Planning Department, 
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
6th Level, B-Wing, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002        ........... Respondent 
Email: psfin@nic.in

DOH: 27.09.2021

Present: Sh. Ajay Kumar, Complainant

Sh. K.R. Chhibber, Dy. Director appeared on behalf of respondent.

ORDER

    The complainant Sh. Ajay Kumar, a person with 40% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated ‘Nil’ (received on 16.06.2021) submitted that he was appointed as Statistical Assistant  in the Planning Department under the category of person with disability.  He alleged that he is presently working in the Directorate of Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi as an Assistant Director.  He was not given any financial and physical benefits till date.  Length of service for the eligibility to his next promotion had not been counted, which should be counted w.e.f. 29.12.2015 with reference to the Planning Department’s rectification Order No. 1158-73 dated  20.02.2020. He made various requests to the Planning Department but no action has been taken till date.  He further added that due to above mistake of department he had not given promotional benefit.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 01.07.2021 for submission of their comments. However, no response was received from the respondent in spite of reminder dated 10.08.2021.  

3. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 27.09.2021.  

Sh. Ajay Kumar, complainant was present.  Sh. K.R. Chhibber, Dy. Director (Planning)  was present on behalf of respondent. 

4. Sh. K.R. Chhibber, Dy.Director (Planning) appeared on behalf of respondent has confirmed that the issue of the complainant would be resolved by 15th October, 2021.

5. After due deliberations and discussion on the case, it is recommended that respondent should consider the plea of complainant as per the existing RRs and provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and dispose it accordingly by 15.10.2021.

6. The case is disposed of. 

7. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 27th day of September, 2021.      

(Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Qamar Aleem Vs. The Director, Education Department (HQ), North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Case No. 2171/1024/2021/03/1760-62 | Dated:24-09-21

 

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-110002

Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

 Case No. 2171/1024/2021/03/1760-62                                                      Dated:24-09-21

In the matter of:

Mr. Qamar Aleem,
Flat No. H-801, Amaatra Homes, 
Plot No-GH-02C, Sector-10, Greater Noida West,
Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh- 201308
Email ID: qamaraleemsaifi@gmail.com                       ……………..Complainant 

Versus

The Director,
Education Department (HQ),
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
15th Floor, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, J.L.N. Marg,
New Delhi-110002                          ………..Respondent No.1

The Principal,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation School,
Jharoda Majra-II, Civil Line Zone,
W-8, New Delhi-110084                 ………..Respondent No.2

D.O.H.: 23.09.2021

Present: Mr. Qamar Aleem, Complainant

Sh. Puranmal, S.I.Education/CLZ appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.1

Sh. Parth Sarthi Gupta, Principal appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2.

ORDER

  The above named complainant, a person with 40% locomotor disabilities filed a complaint dated 08.03.2021 under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 hereinafter referred to as the Act.  He  inter-alia submitted that he is presently working as Primary Teacher at North Delhi Municipal Corporation School (NDMCS), Jharoda, Majra-II, W-8 New Delhi-110084 and his transport allowance from the month of October 2020 to December 2020 was deducted by the Principal of NDMCS.  He was harassed and discriminated by the school authorities. Thus, he requested for grant of  his TA as deducted by North DMC from his salary for the month of October 2020 to December 2020.

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent No. 1 & 2  vide letter dated 25.03.2021 for submission of their comments. Assistant Director, Education/CLZ, North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), Education Department, Civil Lines Zone informed that Principal, NDMC School Jharoda Majra-II, Civil Line Zone, W-8, Delhi vide their letter dated 27.07.2021 informed that Mr. Qamar Aleem, Teacher did not take part survey in the month of October to November 2020 which was conducted for enhancement of admission in Municipal Schools.  Despite departmental orders / directions, the complainant Sh. Qamar Aleem did not distribute the textbooks to students thereby disobeyed the order of competent authority.  Apart from the above, complainant remained absent from duty during the month of December 2020.  In view of the above stated facts Principal of the school had deducted the TA of Sh. Qaleem Aleem, for the month of October to December’2020.

3. Complainant vide his rejoinder dated 24.08.2021 inter-alia submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of Education Department, NDMC/CLZ. He did work of book distribution on 5,6,9,12,13,14,17 & 21 in the month of October 2020, he attended office in November 2020 and also he did work from home in December 2020.  He further stated that all other teaching staff got TA for above three months except him.

4. Sh. Parth Sarathi Gupta, Principal MCPS Jharoda Mazra-II, respondent No. 2 vide his written submission dated 06.09.2021 inter-alia submitted that the work and conduct of Sh. Qamar Aleem is not found satisfactory.  On several occasions he had been involved in unauthorised activities which are inappropriate for a govt. employee. His TA was deducted on the ground that he disobeyed the orders of superiors and had not worked during the months from October to December’2020.

5. To resolve the matter and dispose the petition of the complainant, a hearing was scheduled on 09.09.2021, which was attended by complainant and representative of respondent No. 1.   Complainant submitted copies of his attendance record from the month of October, 2020 to December, 2020, which had been perused and taken on record.  As the same was not duly authenticated, it was desired that the HoS should see and do the same. Sh. Puranmal, S.I. Education/CLZ, appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1, submitted that salary of the complainant was released by his office on the basis of attendance record sent by Principal, North Delhi Municipal Corporation School, Jharoda Majra-II, Civil Line Zone, New Delhi.  In view of the above, Court directed respondent No. 1 to have an internal inquiry into the matter and submit an action taken report to this office by 17.09.2021 and the matter was fixed for hearing on 23.09.2021 at 11.30 AM.

6. During the hearing on 23.09.2021, complainant, Sh. Puranmal, S.I. Education/CLZ, for respondent no. 1 and Sh. Parth Sarthi Gupta, Principal NDMC School,Jharoda Majra-II, Civil Line Zone, respondent no. 2 all were present. 

7. Sh. Puranmal, S.I. Education/CLZ, representative of the respondent no. 1 confirmed that the complainant had attended the school during the month of October and November’2020 and there is no proof of his attendance in the month of December’2020. Thus, he is eligible for TA from the month of October & November’2020.   He has also filed duly verified copies of attendance register, which has been taken on record. 

8. In view of the above, the Court recommends as under:

(i) As per attendance register report by the S.I. Sh. Puranmal in this Court and existing norms / rules, complainant is entitled for Transport Allowance for the month of October & November’2020,  thus, respondent No. 1 & 2 are directed to release the TA  to complainant for the above months. 

(ii) Complainant is also directed to be careful in future to adhere the orders / directions given by his superiors i.e. the Head of School in this particular case. 

9. The case is disposed of. 

10. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 23rd day of September, 2021.      

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Amar Dass Vs. The SHO, PS Govind Puri | Case No.2344/1111/2021/09/1748-50 | Dated: 23-09-2021

 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-110002

Phone: 011-23216003-04,  Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

 
Case No.2344/1111/2021/09/1748-50                                        Dated:23-09-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. Amar Dass,
580/6, Govind Puri,
Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.                        …………Complainant

Versus

The SHO,
Police Station Govind Puri,
Baba Fateh Singh Marg, Kalkaji Extension,
Block A 14, Govind Puri,
New Delhi 110019.                                  ………..Respondent 

Date of Hearing : 23.09.2021

Present : Sh. Amar Dass, Complainant
    Sh. Devi Dass, brother of complainant
                        Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Inspector on behalf of respondent

ORDER

Sh. Amar Dass, the above named complainant, a person with 80% locomotor disability filed a complaint dated 03.09.2021, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, hereinafter referred to as the Act, regarding mental torture by his brother Sh. Devi Dass.  He alleged that his brother forcefully took cash etc. from him and also mentioned the various misdeeds by his brother and requested for help. 

2. The SHO, PS Govindpuri was directed to  present the alleged person Shri Devi Dass in the Court on 23.09.2021.  During the hearing, complainant reiterated his submissions.  Sh. Devi Dass, brother of complainant denied all the allegations against him.  He submitted that he is always taking care of his younger brother Sh. Amar Dass and will also do in the future.  Police official present during the hearing submitted that this is a case of civil dispute and police have no role in this matter.  

3. After hearing the complainant, his brother and the respondent, it is observed that this particular case is of civil dispute between the two brothers and not a case of discrimination on the ground of disability as per the provisions of RPwD Act, 2016.  

4. Both the brothers are requested to sort out their dispute amicably failing which the complainant may approach to the Civil Court for further action. 

5. The matter is disposed as closed.

6. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 23rd day of September, 2021. 

 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Copy to :- Sh. Devi Dass, 149, Type-III, Sector-I, Sadique Nagar, Near Indian School, New Delhi-110049. 

Om Prakash Vs. The Director IHBAS | Case No. 2187/1111/2021/04/1718-19 | Dated: 22/09/21

 In the court of  the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-110002

Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 2187/1111/2021/04/1718-19                            Dated: 22/09/21 
 
In the matter of:

Sh. Om Prakash,
DEO, Estt. Branch, 
Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, 
Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110095.                                                  ……Complainant

Versus

The Director,
Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences, 
Dilshad Garden,    
Delhi-110095.                           .…..Respondent

Date of Hearing : 21.09.2021

Present : Dr. V.K.S. Gautam, Asstt. Professor, Neurosurgery and

Sh. Abdul Qadir, Consultant, IHBAS on behalf of respondent. 

ORDER

        Sh. Om Prakash, the above named complainant, a person with 75% locomotor disability, working as DEO on contract basis in IHBAS, filed a complaint dated 13.03.2021 regarding use of abusive words against him regarding his disability and his family by Shri R.S. Saini, Assistant Accounts Officer of the Department whose behavior towards him was unbecoming. 

2. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 07.04.2021 followed by reminders dated 16.06.2021 & 27.07.2021. However, no response was received from respondent.  A hearing was scheduled on 21.09.2021.

3. During the hearing, respondent submitted a letter dated 20.09.2021 vide which it was informed that on the basis of the complaint, an enquiry was set up and Shri R.S. Saini, AAO was found guilty.  Thus with reprimand he was transferred from Establishment Section to NABH Cell, IHBAS vide their office order dated 19.04.2021.  It was further informed that a Grievance Redressal Committee has been constituted in IHBAS and the complaint of Shri Om Prakash was referred to this Committee and the Inquiry Report submitted by the Committee is under process.  Suitable measures have been adopted at IHBAS.   

4. The complainant did not attend the hearing and was contacted on telephone who informed that he was happy with the action taken by the respondent.

5. In view of the positive response of the respondent, the matter is disposed as closed.

6. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 21st day of September, 2021. 

 

(Ranjan Mukherjee)

               State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

Suraj Pal Vs. The DCP, Rohini District | Case No. 2233/1111/2021/06/1656-57 | Dated: 15-09-2021

In the court of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25-D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-02

Phone: 011-23216003-04, Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 2233/1111/2021/06/1656-57                             Dated:15-09-21 

In the matter of:

Sh. Suraj Pal,
Through e-mail:palsuraj9751@gmail.com                   ………Complainant

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Rohini District,
Sector-23 Road, Pocket-5
Rohini, Delhi-110085.                         ………..Respondent 

Date of Hearing : 14.09.2021

Present: Sh.  Suraj Pal, Complainant.

Sh. Aditya Ranjan, SHO, PS Prem Nagar on behalf of the respondent.

ORDER

  The complainant, Sh. Suraj Pal, a person with 65% locomotor disability vide his complaint dated 07.06.2021  alleged that  Omprakash R/o of L-288, Mangol puri his wife Sushma, Kuldeep his wife Punita and Ishwar Chandra Maura are harassing him by abusing, mishandling  and  giving him threats to kill.  Sh. Omprakash and Sh. Kuldeep captured his shop and now they wanted to occupy his home forcibly. He had made complaint to Police Station Prem Nagar Rohini but the local police has not taken appropriate action against them.   

2. The complainant vide another email dated 01.07.2021 also informed that on 22.06.2021 when he went to buy some stuff from market  Sh. Kuldeep, Sh. Omprakash and Ms. Punita brutally attacked on his wife and daughter,  he called on 100 and PCR brought her wife to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for MLC. Consequently she was admitted there for four days.  After that on 22.06.2021 evening Inquiry Officer called him in Police Station Prem Nagar and arrested him and presented him in Rohini Court on 23.06.2021 and registered case 7/51.  He was shocked on the act of police that he had been harassed and tortured without any fault. Thus, he again requested this Court to help him to lodge an FIR against the above mentioned persons.

3. The matter was taken up with the respondent vide letter dated 16.06.2021 followed by reminders  dated 28.07.2021 & 19.08.2021. As there was no response from the respondent, a hearing was scheduled on 14.09.2021. The complainant was present and Sh. Aditya Ranjan, SHO, Police Station, Prem Nagar was also present for respondent.

 4. Complaint reiterated his written submissions and inter-alia added that Police he had been tortured and beaten brutally by the Inquiry Officer Sh. Manglesh when he was taken into custody by Police overnight on 22.06.2021. However, no action was taken against alleged persons.  He has also alleged that the accused persons keep making rounds at his residence in groups and make intimidating gestures.  Police is adopting lackadaisical in investigating his case, he possessed a pendrive in favour of his claim but police is not considering it as evidence.    He, therefore, he fears unprotected and frightened for his family and his property.

5. Sh. Aditya Ranjan , SHO, PS Prem Nagar vide their written submissions dated 14.09.2021 informed that the enquiry into the matter got conducted through ACP Aman Vihar, which revealed that mother of complainant i.e. Shiv Kali Devi has this three storey building.  The ground floor was given to the complainant, one other floor to his younger brother Mukesh and rest floor to their nephew Kuldeep, who became an orphan at young age and since then as grandparents they have been looking after him as guardian.  Now nephew Kuldeep and complainant’s younger brother Omprakash is trying to capture the said property forcefully.  It further revealed that as per statement of mother of complainant she is the sole owner of the property and she has given other property to her three sons namely Surajpal, Mukesh and Om Prakash. None of her sons look after her and thus, she is currently residing with her grandson Kuldeep in the above said property.  She has rented the shop on the ground floor to one Ishwar Chand who is paying rent to her on monthly basis. Her son Suraj Pal and Mukesh wanted to sell this property of her and so they are trying to implicate her grandson Kuldeep and tenant Ishwar Chand in a false case. It was further stated that Suraj Pal and his brother Mukesh have filed a Civil Suit No. CS/570/2021 on the subject matter against the mother and the tenant Ishwar Chand Maurya in the Court of Sh. Abhinav Singh, Civil Judge, Rohini Courts in order to get the place vacated.  During the course of enquiry by the Police as per statement of Kuldeep, nephew of the complainant, it was also recorded that in all official documents the name of his grandfather Late Sh. Gangadin has been recorded in place of his father’s name as guardian.   All his uncles namely Suraj Pal (complainant), Mukesh and Om Prakash neglected their own mother hence she has been residing with him.  His uncles wanted to sell the property so they filed the Civil Suit No. CS/570/2021  against Ishwar Chandra Maurya, tenant of the shop and another Civil Suit No. CS/851/2021 against him (Kuldeep ) and his grandmother Smt. Shivkali Devi.  Further the complainant has already filed a complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as well as U/S 200 Cr. P.C before the Hon’ble Court of Ld. MM Rohini Court with the same allegations mentioned in this complaint and the case is pending before the Hon’ble MM Rohini Court CC No. 5800/21. Thus the matter pertains to family property dispute which is civil in nature.  The complainant has already filed two civil suits in Rohini Courts against her mother Smt. Shivkali Devi, his nephew Kuldeep and tenant Ishwar Chandra Maura.  Since the matter is already sub-judice, no police action is required. 

6. Section 6 & 7 of the Act  mandates the appropriate Government to take measures to protect persons with disabilities from being subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and  from all forms  of abuse, violence and exploitation and to prevent the same.  The concerned Executive Magistrate and the other Police Officers are required to take various measures to ensure protection of persons with disabilities from any abuse, violence and exploitation.   In this regard, Commissioner of Police vide Circular No. 28/2017 dated 25.10.2017 directed all the DCs(P) to take necessary action to make the IOs aware of the provisions of Act and to ensure its effective implementation. 

7. In view of the above facts, it is recommended that:

(i) The matter is a property dispute and currently sub-judice in Civil Court, thus the issue of settlement of property cannot be considered in this court. Complainant & Respondent should take appropriate measures as per outcome of the pending civil suit. 

(ii) Respondent is directed to ensure that the complainant is not harassed, abused, or discriminated by any person in any manner and his rights are not infringed.

(iii) SHO, Police Station, Prem Nagar, is also directed to check and go through the pendrive, which will be handed over by complainant (alongwith Certificate 65-B that it is not tempered / doctored) as an evidence to his claim that accused persons keep making rounds at his residence in groups and make intimidating gestures thereby threatening him and his family and if it proves that, adequate action to be taken against such culprits. 

(iv) SHO, Police Station, Prem Nagar is also directed to investigate and confirm that complainant was tortured and beaten up in Police custody overnight on 22/06/2021 by Inquiry Officer Sh. Manglesh or if the fact is otherwise and submit an ATR to this Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. 

8. Accordingly, the case is disposed of. 

9. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 15th day of September, 2021.      

(Ranjan Mukherjee )

State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities