Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed by the National Power Training Institute (‘NPTI’) to challenge the Order dated 02-08-2024 passed by the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (‘CCPD’) which stayed the transfer of respondent 3 (a person with disabilities), a Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J. stated that the interim order could not have been issued under the scheme of the Right of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘RPWD Act’) as it exceeded the scope of the Chief Commissioner’s investigatory and recommendatory powers, and set the operative portion of the impugned order aside to the extent that it directed NPTI to stay the transfer order.
Background
A person with disabilities was appointed as Assistant Director (Tech/Faculty) at NPTI in 2007. On 27-07-2009, an office order was issued to transfer the person from the central office of NPTI in Faridabad to the northern region in Badarpur, New Delhi. This transfer was cancelled by an office order dated 03-05-2010.
In 2014, the person with disabilities allegedly started using his political connections to demand a promotion from NPTI. In response to this, NPTI issued a memorandum dated 06-07-2015 under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (‘CCS Rules’) and charged the person with disabilities for bypassing the appropriate authority to address his grievance and directly approaching higher authorities. However, these charges were withdrawn through an office order dated 10-04-2017.
On 24-09-2018, the person with disabilities filed a complaint with the CCPD to seek a promotion to the post of Deputy Director. This complaint was disposed of by an order dated 22-11-2019 which directed NPTI to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the RPWD Act.
On 27-12-2019, the person with disabilities was promoted to the post of Deputy Director and transferred to NPTI Shivpuri, M.P. However, on 16-03-2020, the person with disabilities again approached higher authorities through political persons and raised grievances against the transfer.
On 24-04-2020, NPTI issued another memorandum against the person with disabilities under Rule 20 of the CCS Rules for using political influence to seek a transfer from Shivpuri to Faridabad. Despite this, the person was transferred back to Faridabad by an office order dated 02-09-2020.
On 19-06-2024, the person with disabilities was again ordered to be transferred from Faridabad to Durgapur in public interest since his skills and expertise were required at the Durgapur site. The person with disabilities sent an email to NPTI wherein he cited his illness and a doctor’s recommendation for bed rest but assured them that he would report to Durgapur once he had recovered.
However, on 21/22-07-2024, the person with disabilities filed a complaint with the CCPD against NPTI wherein it was alleged that the frequent transfers reflected malafide intent and amounted to harassment of a person with disabilities. The CCPD issued a notice under Sections 75 and 77 of the RPWD Act to the Director General, NPTI. Amidst the proceedings, the person with disabilities continued to express his willingness to join the new position at Durgapur once he had recovered.
On 23-07-2024, NPTI issued another memorandum to urge the person with disabilities to join his duty in Durgapur immediately. On 26-07-2024, the CCPD issued a subsequent notice summoning NPTI to appear on 30-07-2024. After hearing the matter, CCPD issued an interim order by which the transfer of the person with disabilities had been stayed.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that under Section 75 of the RWPD Act, CCPD was empowered to inquire, suo motu or otherwise, into complaints regarding deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities and take up such matters with appropriate authorities for corrective action. However, it did not confer authority upon the CCPD to pass binding or adjudicatory orders akin to those issued by a court of law.
Moreover, the Court noted that Section 77 of the RPWD Act granted CCPD some powers similar to those of a civil court, such as summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses. However, these powers are procedural and limited to the scope of conducting inquiries and investigations.
The Court said that there were several judicial precedents to guide the Court regarding the powers of CCDP and stated that the impugned order appeared to exceed the statutory jurisdiction conferred upon CCPD by the RPWD Act. It was mentioned that the issuance of a stay on the transfer order issued by NPTI was beyond its recommendatory and investigatory mandate.
The Court referred to Central Bank of India v. Shakuntala Devi 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7046 wherein the Court clarified that the Chief Commissioner’s powers are limited to examining matters related to the declaration and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities. It was also said that the Chief Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to issue orders that directly interfered with employment decisions such as transfer orders because these fell under the domain of the employer’s administrative prerogatives.
Thus, the Court held that the Chief Commissioner does not possess the authority to pass interim orders that effectively halt administrative actions such as transfers, pending further inquiry. Consequently, the Court stated that the interim order in question could not have been validly issued under the scheme of the RPWD Act since it exceeded the scope of the Chief Commissioner’s investigatory and recommendatory powers.
The Court, while allowing the writ petition, set aside the operative portion of the impugned order to the extent that it directed NPTI to keep the transfer order in abeyance.
[National Power Training Institute v. Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disability, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6185, Decided on 02-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Prashant Shukla, Advocate Anushree Shukla, Advocate Prabhat Chowdhury, Advocate Kartik Kumar, Party-in-person
For Respondent — SPC Vivek Sharma, Advocate Manoj Kr. Tyagi, Advocate Kapil Dev Yadav, Advocate Shekhar Tyagi, Advocate Tanveer Oberoi, Party-in-person