Disability protection under service law fails where long absence and non-response undermine the claim for reinstatement relief.

An employee claiming protection under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 was found unable to displace the adverse factual record, because he remained absent from service for a long period, did not respond to the notice or charge-sheet, and failed to produce the material needed to support disability-based protection. On those facts, the court found no basis to interfere with the order passed in favour of the respondent, and the order setting aside the Commissioner's decision was upheld. The decision turns on the absence of proof supporting the statutory protection and the resulting failure to show any ground for reinstatement relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to protection under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 despite prolonged absence from duty and non-response to the notice and charge-sheet, and whether the order directing reinstatement called for interference.

Analysis: The appellant remained absent from service for a long period, did not respond to the notice, and did not reply to the charge-sheet. The materials necessary to support the claim of disability-based protection were also not produced. In these circumstances, the factual basis for upsetting the order passed in favour of the respondent was not made out.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to relief, and the order setting aside the Commissioner's decision was upheld.

---