AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The applicant, a serving Colonel in the Army has filed this application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 aggrieved by an
Invalidment Medical Board (IMB) dated 31.05.2020, based on which a Show Cause Notice (SCN) has been issued intimating that it is intended to
invalidate out the applicant from service after obtaining the sanction of the competent authority. The applicant has made the following prayers
(a) Call for the relevant medical records of the Applicant and after perusal thereof quash and set-aside the IMB Proceedings dated 31.05.2020 and its
findings and recommendations.
Set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 04.08.2020 served to the Applicant on basis of illegal and arbitrary findings/ recommendation of the said IMB
Proceedings. Set aside the illegal findings/ recommendation of HoD Dept of Psychiatry at AFMC Pune whereby the findings and the recommendation
of the IMB Proceedings has been confirming/ upholding without carrying out fresh/ de-novo medical evaluation of the applicant's psychiatric condition.
Direct the Respondents to hold, if necessary, an Appeal Medical Board to re-evaluate the applicant's medical condition afresh. Direct the
Respondents not to act upon the finding/ recommendations of the IMB Proceedings and/or the finding/opinion/recommendation of the HoD Dept of
Psychiatry at AFMC.
Issue such other order(s)/direction(s) as maybe deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. And in the interim, direct the
Respondents that pending disposal of the instant OA, no precipitative action shall be taken for applicant’s termination of service on medical
grounds on the basis of false and arbitrary findings of the IMB dated 08.08.2020 shall not be given effect to and/or false & arbitrary findings /
recommendations of the HoD Dept of Psychiatry at AFMC; issue any other/further direction or order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
Based on the Order dated 24.06.2021, the Counsel for the Respondents submitted copies of the connected medical reports, documents and file
noting pertaining to the case. Heard both parties on the interim prayer.
3.The Counsel for the applicant took us through the medical history of the applicant and stated that the applicant had been under treatment since 2013,
for ‘Adjustment Disorder’ and ‘Primary Hypertension’. He further elaborated that the applicant was initially placed in temporary medical
category and was later placed in permanent medical category S2(P) in Jan 18. He was later upgraded to medical category SI in Jan 2020. That it was
only in Apr 2020, for the first time that the applicant was diagnosed to be suffering from Alcohol Dependency Syndrome (ADS) and Bi Polar Disorder
(BPD). In this episode, he was initially admitted in MH Hissar and was then transferred to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt (BHDC). On culmination of
treatment at BHDC, he was diagnosed to be suffering from ADS and BPD; was recommended to be placed in medical category S5 and invalidated
from service vide medical board proceedings dated 30.04.2020. Thus, within a month of his hospitalisation, the applicant was recommended to be
placed in medical category S5 and be invalidated. The Counsel vehemently stated that this was totally in contravention to the existing rules and policy
of medical management of such cases. Later, the IMB was held at MH Hissar on 04.08.2020 and a SCN issued on the same day. In response to the
SCN, the applicant had submitted an appeal dated 18.08.2020. The respondents instead of holding an Appeal Medical Board, referred the case to
AFMC, Pune for review and opinion of the HoD, Dept of Psychiatry. Aggrieved by the whole episode, the applicant submitted a statutory complaint
dated 24.05.2021 giving details of various issues and also highlighting various provisions that had not been followed/ applied in his case. The applicant
has now been informed that his case for termination of service has been forwarded to the Gol for sanction. Further aggrieved by these actions of the
Respondents, the applicant filed the OA.
4.The Counsel then took us through Army Order 09/2002/DGMS(Army) regarding the guidelines to be followed in dealing with patients of ADS and
elaborated on Para 66 which lays down the general guidelines to be followed in dealing with such patients. He then took us through DGAFMS
Memorandum No 171/2001 and elaborated on Para 9(a) and (b) related to invalidment and retention guidelines and referred to their application to
patients with ADS/ stress related disorders. Summarising the application of these rules and policy in the case of the applicant, the Counsel vehemently
stated the following:-
(a) That contrary to the policy that an ADS patient is to be given once a maximum of 96 weeks period for total recovery and is to be observed under surveillance over
a period of 96 weeks i.e. twice in S3 (T-24) and twice in S2 (T-24), the applicant was denied this opportunity and recommended to be invalidated within a month of
being diagnosed with ADS and BPD for the first time.
(b) That, if indeed the applicant had been a patient of ADS even before, he was not to be placed in placed in permanent low medical classification during
surveillance. In the applicant’s case he was placed in S2(P) in Jan 2018.
(c) That, even if invalidment was contemplated, as per the policy in vogue, all individuals who are unlikely to be reasonably productive in the discharge of their duties
are to be invalided out of service only after adequate treatment, the aim of which is to render the affected individuals fit for service or, if this is not possible, to
reduce their disability to enable them rehabilitate themselves in civil life as far as possible. In the case of the applicant, he was being invalidated from service within
one month of being diagnosed and has thus been denied adequate treatment having been diagnosed as a case % of ADS.
(d)Moreover, since the applicant’s medical issue had commenced in 2013 based on stress related disorder, and the fact that in all cases of psychotic disorders
who have good response to the treatment are to be considered for retention, the applicant ought to be retained in service.
(e)That, consequent to being issued the SCN dated 04.08.2020,the applicant having submitted an appeal dated 18.08.2020, the Respondents had referred the case
to AFMC, Pune for review and opinion of the HoD, Dept of Psychiatry, instead of holding an Appeal Medical Board.
5.The Counsel for the Respondents vehemently denied the assertions made by the Counsel for the applicant and said that the complete details of the
case were in the file of documents submitted to the Tribunal, and that they gave the actual facts of the case. The Counsel also stated that there was
no cause of action as yet and that instead of replying to the SCN in detail the applicant had approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the
following documents presented:-
(a) BHDC Classification Medical Board Proceedings dated 08.08.2013 placing the applicant in medical category S3(T-24) for Adjustment Disorder and P2 (T-24) for
Primary Hypertension.
(b) BHDC Classification Medical Board Proceedings dated 30.01.2015 placing the applicant in medical category S2(T-24) for Adjustment Disorder and P2(T-24) for
Primary Hypertension.
(c) BHDC, Medical Case Sheet in respect of the applicant on being admitted for Recategorisation Medical Board on 14.01.2020including the ‘Summary and Opinion
by Classified Specialist (Psy) dated 15.01.2020 recommending the medical category to be upgraded to SI and ‘Opinion of Senior Advisor (Psy) dated 16.01.2020
concurring with the recommendations, subject to approval of higher medical authorities.
(d) BHDC, Medical Case Sheet in respect of the applicant on being transferred from MH Hissar to BHDC on 21.04.2020, including the ‘Summary and Opinion by
Classified Specialist (Psy) dated 20.04.2021 recommending medical category S5 and ‘Opinion of Senior Advisor (Psy) concurring with the recommendations, subject
to approval of higher medical authorities.
(e) Condonation of delay in conduct of recategorisation medical board from 12.08.2017 to 02.08.2020 accorded by GOC 1 Corps dated 24.07.2020
(f) Summary and Opinion of Graded Specialist (Medicine), MH Hissar dated 02.08.2020
(g) Extracts of MH Hissar Recategorisation Medical Board Proceedings dated 02.08.2020 placing the applicant in medical category P2(P) for PRIMARY
HYPERTENSION.
(h) Proceedings of IMB dated 04.08.2020 held at MH Hissar.
(i) MH Hissar letter No 5987/569/SCN/20 dated 04.08.2020 ‘IMB: Issue of SCN in r/o IC 51126H Col APS Hansi’ addressed to the applicant and his spouse.
(j) Applicant’s letter No 51126/Med/Pers dated 18.08.2020 ‘Appeal against the SCN and Decision of IMB, MH Hissar’.
(k) MH Hissar letter No 5987/368/IMB/20 dated 25.08.2020 ‘Comments of President Medical Board on Appeal against IMB in r/o IC 51126H Col APS Hansi’.
(1) Noting of DGMS (Army)/DGMS-5A, file no 76101/ 2068/ 26/ 2020/ DGMS-5A dated 19.11.2020 (Note 1 to 13) - Processing of the Appeal against the IMB; treating
the reply to the SCN as an appeal case; sanction to seek independent opinion of HoD, Dept of Psychiatry, AFMC. Sanction accorded by DGMS(Army) on 23.11.2020.
(m) Detailed facts of the case, para wise comments, summary and opinion of the HoD Dept of Psychiatry, AFMC Pune dated 27.01.2021.
(n) Approval of the Proceedings of IMB by Brig Med, HQ 1 Corps dated 19 .02.2021. Confirmation of the IMB proceedings by Offg MG Med, HQ South Western
Comd dated 02.03.2021.
(o) Noting of DGMS (Army)/DGMS-5A, file no 76101/ 2068/ 26/ 2020/ DGMS-5A dated 10.03.2021 (Note 14 to 21) - Processing of the Appeal against the IMB; Appeal
recommended to be rejected by AG vide Note 18 dated 18.04.2021. Case forwarded to MoD/D(Med) vide Note 23 dated 25.05.2021.
Examination of the documents produced to the Tribunal indicate that the various psychiatric specialists have examined the case in detail and
provided opinions as to why they concluded that the applicant should be placed in medical category S5 and be invalidated. The medical details are not
extracted here in deference to the privacy of the applicant.
Having heard both parties and examined the documents produced, we see no case to interfere at this stage, where only a SCN has been issued, and
provide any interim relief. The Respondents are, however, directed to examine the issues related to the application of various rules and policies in
respect of management of an ADS patient, as it relates to the applicant and address these issues specifically while deciding on the case for
invalidation, and in their reply to the Appeal and Statutory Complaint filed by the applicant. Liberty is granted to the applicant to approach this Tribunal
as per law, should he be further agitated with the outcome of his appeal/statutory complaint.
8.With the aforesaid, OA stands disposed of.