Bangalore District Court
Dr. R.P. Sharma (I.P.S vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 24 October, 2019
1
O S No.7746/2006
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY: (CCH-56)
: Present :
SRI. K. NARAYANA PRASAD, B.Sc., LL.M.,
LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
Dated :: This the 24th day of October, 2019
O.S. No. 7746/2006
PLAINTIFF :: Dr. R.P. Sharma (I.P.S.-
Karnataka Cadre), Major, S/o.
Late. M.P.Sharma, Presently
Inspector General of Police,
Southern Range, Office of
I.G.P. Jalpuri, Mysore.
(By Sri B.R.D./J.C.K., Adv.)
- VS-
DEFENDANT :: Ministry of Home Affairs, Union
of India, Represented by its
Home Secretary, Grah
Mantralaya North Block, New
Delhi.
(By Sri DPP/K.M.J., Adv.)
Date of Institution of the suit : 28-08-2006
Nature of the Suit : Suit for Damages
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 23-03-2007
2
O S No.7746/2006
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 24-10-2019
Year/s Month/s Day/s
13 01 27
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for Damages.
2. The facts in brief of the case of the plaintiff is that, plaintiff is an IPS Officer and presently holding the rank of Inspector General of Police(Karnataka Cadre). He was awarded commendation certificates, appreciation letters for good service and he has achieved good reputation in his department. The defendant is the Ministry of Home Affairs in its letter Dated: 31-12-2003 requested the State Governments to recommend the Officers of the ranks of DGP and SP for deployment of United Nation Mission in Sudan. The plaintiff at that time was DIG of Police (Railways). He has opted for the said request and conveyed his willingness to join United Nations Mission in Sudan. The defendant also instructed the State Government to certify that the candidates 3 O S No.7746/2006 recommended are cleared from the angle of vigilance . The Karnataka Sate has issued clearance certificate and recommended the name of plaintiff. After the State Government recommendation and after clearance from vigilance angle, the defendant has directed the plaintiff to undergo SAT test, which was necessary for the candidates to be deployed to U.N. Mission in Sudan. The State Government has deputed the plaintiff for such test and expenses are sponsored by State Government of Karnataka considering the merit and integrity and clearance from vigilance angle. It is a matter of record that, the plaintiff was selected and posted by Government of India to serve in Sashastra Seema Bal.
3. Based on the State Government recommendation he was making all travel arrangements and made all preparations to go to United Nation Mission at Sudan. The defendant has over looked the plaintiff's merit and suitability and great injustice was done to him. The officials who have less meritorious 4 O S No.7746/2006 person such as Revada A.Chandrashekar, who is facing allegation and charge sheeted in a murder case are considered for United Nation Mission. The plaintiff after suspecting the foul play complained to the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi making allegation against D.Mukherjee, I.P.S., Additional Director, CBI etc., The plaintiff has obtained some information under RTI Act and on going through the same, 11 officers below the plaintiff under the merits were deployed on the recommendation of defendant. That, no officer has cleared from vigilance angle were prevented from deployment except a candidate who unilaterally withdrew. The reason for not nominating the plaintiff is allegedly undisclosed false report. The details of the same was not given to the plaintiff even after several requests under RTI application.
4. The plaintiff has stated that, he is deprived off an opportunity to serve in U.N.Mission at Sudan on 5 O S No.7746/2006 account of false campaign by Dr. Rajagopal and Dr. D.Mukherjee against whom the plaintiff in discharge of his duty has taken some action. The plaintiff had taken action against Dr. Rajagopal for misappropriation of government property and against Dr. D.Mukherjee for forging and misappropriating documents. These two officials were hell bent to avenge the official actions taken by plaintiff and indulged in false campaign to harm the plaintiff. The plaintiff has lost an opportunity to serve in United Nation Mission, Sudan. Apart from suffering from monitory loss in view of the same, the plaintiff states that, he would have drawn salary of US$ 172 per day for 11 months and he would have some monitory benefits also. The vindictive action of defendant resulted in great injustice and great harm, injuries to his finance and reputation and accordingly the plaintiff is of the view that, he has suffered loss of Rs.25,00,000/-, but he has restricted his claim to Rs.8,00,000/- as damages.
6
O S No.7746/2006
5. On issuance of summons, the defendant has appeared before this court and filed written statement. In the written statement of defendant for the purposes of deployment of police officer to United Nations the defendant has to follow certain procedures. In view of limited slot certain internal restrictions also imposed by Government of India. The defendant has admitted that, Government of Karnataka has recommended the name of plaintiff and his name was considered for deployment with United Nation Mission, Sudan and accordingly his nomination was accepted and he underwent SAT Test. The defendant has also admitted that, the plaintiff has served in Sashastra Seema Bal from 09-07-2004 to 22-11-2005. After repatriation he was sent to Foreign Training in the month of January-2006. It was during the currency of his tenure in S.S.B., an input was received from CBI vide letter dated: 16-02-2005 conveying that an enquiry was pending against him by the Anti Corruption Branch of CBI, Bengaluru. This information was further shared by S.S.B. with Ministry of Home 7 O S No.7746/2006 Affairs while his nomination was under consideration for deployment with U.N.Mission in Sudan. The allegations made against other officers, who are selected for U.N. Mission is denied as false and baseless.
6. It is further stated that, the Government of India has all the rights and power to nominate an officer for deputation depending on number of factors which are to be considered holistically. The Government of India has no obligations towards its officers to send them on deputation. Hence, the plaintiff cannot claim pecuniary compensation for any deputation for which he is not sent as the selection by the Government to any officer for deputation deployment with foreign agencies depending on number of factors which are to be considered and government will select the candidates holistically. The denial of opportunity of selection will not suffice to claim any right of pecuniary compensation.
7. The defendant has also filed additional written statement. The defendant has once again stated about 8 O S No.7746/2006 the communication dated: 06-02-2004 by the Government of Karnataka intimating about the plaintiff is only a feed back and there is no independent authority to the State Government to answer in the subject matter present before the court. This court will not get jurisdiction to the subject matter, jurisdiction as to the value of the suit on pecuniary jurisdiction and jurisdiction as to the place of suing or territorial jurisdiction. In view of all these, the defendant has prayed for dismissal for the suit.
8. In view of the above rival contentions the following issues are framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he was wrongfully deprive from serving in the U.N.Mission at Sudan ?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that by the illegal, malafide and vindictive action of the defendant, he suffered great injustice, harm and injury to his career, prospects, finances and reputation ?9
O S No.7746/2006
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards loss of salary, loss of allowance, damage to career, prospects, future avenues, reputation, mental trauma, agony etc., and restrict his claim for Rs.8,00,000/- ?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that cause of action arose at Bangalore ?
5. Whether the defendant proves that the court has no jurisdiction ?
6. Whether defendant proves that suit is not maintainable as it is a service matter and Central Administrative Tribunal is having jurisdiction ?
7. What decree or order ?
9. The plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and he has produced Ex.P-1 to P-34. Mrs. Renu Sarin got examined herself as DW-1 and she is the Under Secretary to Ministry of Home Affairs and she has produced Ex.D-1 to 8.
10
O S No.7746/2006
10. Heard the arguments. The parties have filed written arguments.
11. On going through the records and documents and on perusal of evidence, the issues are answered as follows:-
Issue No.1 :: In the Negative
Issue No.2 :: In the Negative
Issue No.3 :: In the Negative
Issue No.4 :: In the Affirmative
Issue No.5 :: In the Negative
Issue No.6 :: In the Negative
Issue No.7 :: As per final order for the
following............
REASONS
12. Issues No.1 to 3 :: These three issues are considered together as they are interlinked each other and this is also done with a view to avoid repetition of facts.
The respective cases of the parties are already narrated in the above paragraphs and there is no necessity for again repeating the same. 11
O S No.7746/2006
13. The grievance of the plaintiff is that, the defendant has illegally overlooked the candidature of plaintiff for United Nations Mission at Sudan. The plaintiff states that, the over looking and termination is illegal with malafide intention etc., On the other hand, the defendant states that, they got input from C.B.I. about an enquiry was pending against plaintiff and it is the prerogative of the defendant to consider the candidate for deputing any candidate for United Nations Mission.
14. The learned counsel for the plaintiff in addition to the written-arguments submitted before the court vehemently submitted that, the Government of Karnataka cleared the plaintiff from vigilance angle and the plaintiff has fulfilled all the requirement of United Nations Mission. The plaintiff was eligible in all respects and he has even passed S.A.T. Test. The United Nations and the defendant have accepted the plaintiff's nomination and plaintiff was amongst the first 10-15 12 O S No.7746/2006 candidates selected by the United Nations for the U.N.Mission in Sudan. The learned counsel further states that, after nominating the plaintiff for the U.N.Mission in Sudan and after his selection by the United Nations, the defendant illegally, at the behest of vested interests withdrew the nomination of the plaintiff and blocked the plaintiff's selection by the United Nations for U.N. Mission in Sudan. The defendant's only defence is that, they have received an input from the C.B.I. regarding pending enquiry against the plaintiff, but their own evidence states that, the enquiry before the State is closed and there was no enquiry pending against the plaintiff. Even after clearance from vigilance angle, the plaintiff was denied nomination for U.N.Mission The allegation of defendant that, there was a case pending against plaintiff etc., is perjurious, false and baseless. The counsel further submits that, the defendant has willfully not replied to the statutory notice of the plaintiff and there is a malicious act on the part of the defendant in nominating other officers below the rank of plaintiff 13 O S No.7746/2006 and after that willful injustice, harm injury and loss occasioned to the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff is entitled for damages.
15. Learned counsel for the defendant has submitted written arguments. On going through the same, the defendant has stated that, the suit itself is not maintainable and it is frivolous and unsustainable. The defendant has admitted that government of Karnataka has given vigilance clearance and it has recommended the name of plaintiff for deployment with U.N.Mission at Sudan and nomination was then accepted and he was allowed to under go U.N. SAT. It is further stated in the written arguments that, the plaintiff was deputed to Central Deputation in Sashastra Seema Bal (in short S.S.B) and he remained there up to 22-11-2005. Again on his repatriation to Government of Karnataka, he was sent to Foreign training in the month of January-2006. According to the defendant it was during the currency of tenure in S.S.B. an input was 14 O S No.7746/2006 received from C.B.I. about an enquiry pending against plaintiff by A.C.B. of C.B.I., Bengaluru. Based on this information it was shared by S.S.B. When the nomination was under consideration, the defendant has taken certain steps. It is further stated that, seniority by itself is not a criteria for deputation. The defendant has further stated that, the plaintiff has made allegation against the officials of C.B.I. without any basis. The defendant contends that, it is the prerogative of the government to send or not to send any officials for deputation. The contention of the plaintiff that, Section 80 CPC notice was not replied by itself will not give any right or benefit to the plaintiff.
16. The written arguments also states that, the decision of government to nominate the officer for deputation/deployment with foreign agencies depends on number of factors, which are to be considered holistically in a given point of time. The government has no obligation towards officers to send them on 15 O S No.7746/2006 deputation. Hence, the plaintiff cannot claim any pecuniary compensation for any deputation, which he is not sent as the selection by the government to any officer for deputation / deployment with foreign agencies depending on number of factors, which are to be considered and government will select the candidates holistically and denial of opportunity of selection will not suffice to claim any right to pecuniary jurisdiction, for which he was not send to the said service. The defendant also stated about the jurisdiction of this court in the matter itself stating that, there is no merits in the suit. Even though the Government of Karnataka has declined to take action against the plaintiff, the fact remains that, he interfered with the investigation by C.B.I. and thereby exhibited the conduct of unbecoming of a Government Servant. Under these circumstances, the defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
17. Before adverting to the case on merits some 16 O S No.7746/2006 admitted facts are required to be understood. They are....
1. The plaintiff has expressed his willingness to go for United Nations Mission at Sudan and he was eligible in all respects.
2. His name was nominated by the defendant and even United Nations Mission has requested for his services.
3. The defendant has requested the United Nations Mission not to consider the name of plaintiff and the recommendation of plaintiff's candidature was withdrawn.
4. The defendant has acted so by alleging that, there was an input from C.B.I. intimating that there was an enquiry pending against the plaintiff.
18. The plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and he has reiterated the plaint averments. He has produced Ex.P-1 to P-34 documents before the court. Similarly on behalf of defendant Smt. Renu Sarin, Under Secretary to Ministry of Home Affairs got herself examined as DW- 17
O S No.7746/2006 1 and she has produced Ex.D-1 to D-8 before the court.
19. Ex.P-1 is the letter regarding Deployment of CIVPOL Officers with U.N. Mission in Sudan., which was downloaded by the plaintiff from official website of Ministry of Home Affairs. Ex.P-2 is the copy of letter addressed to the Secretary of Department of Personnel and Training questioning the act of defendant. Ex.P-3 is the letter addressed to the defendant requesting for some details in the matter of Right to Information Act. Ex.P-4 is the reply given by Ministry of Home Affairs on RTI application filed by the plaintiff. Ex.P-5 is further continuation of R.T.I. information by way of letter addressed by the plaintiff. Ex.P-6 is another letter addressed to Ministry of Home Affairs with regard to information under RTI Act. Ex.P-7 is legal notice, Ex.P-8 is postal acknowledgement, Ex.P-9 & 10 are postal confirmation, Ex.P-11 & 12 are official Memorandum with regard to Section 80 C.P.C. Ex.P-13 & 14 are proceedings of Government of Karnataka, wherein 18 O S No.7746/2006 disciplinary proceedings against plaintiff was dropped. Ex.P-15 is the extract of file related in the matter of Foreign Trip. Ex.P-16 is the copy of petition filed before Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.). Ex.P-17 is the letter issued by Government of Karnataka forwarding the names of interested candidates for U.N.Mission in Sudan. Ex.P-18 is guidelines with regard to police medals. Ex.P-19 is the certificate issued for the plaintiff by the President. Ex.P-20 is the additional affidavit filed by the DW-1 before C.A.T. Ex.P-21 is the Order passed by the C.A.T.. Ex.P-22 is the information given to the plaintiff under RTI Act by the defendant. Ex.P-23 is the Fax message, wherein all the S.P., C.B.I. has addressed a Fax message to D.G. and I.G.P., Karnataka that no enquiry is pending against the plaintiff. Ex.P-24 is the letter issued by plaintiff to the defendant with regard to illegal review of his ACR by Dr. G.S.Rajagopal. Ex.P-25 is the Memorandum with regard to misappropriation of Dr. G.S.Rajagopal. Ex.P-26 is the letter issued by the plaintiff to the defendant with 19 O S No.7746/2006 regard to alleged misappropriation of government property by Dr. G.S.Rajagopal. Ex.P-27 is the letter issued to the Director General of Police, Sashastra Seema Bal by the Ministry of Home Affairs forwarding the letter of plaintiff for suitable action. Ex.P-28 is another letter issued by the plaintiff to the defendant with regard to the complaint filed by the plaintiff against Dr. G.S.Rajagopal. Ex.P-29 is the postal acknowledgement. Ex.P-30 is postal receipt, Ex.P-31 is the information given by the defendant under Right to Information Act. Ex.P-32 is the postal cover, Ex.P-33 of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and Ex.P-34 is the policy guidelines for the officers in deployment of UN CIVPOL (Civilian Police) Officers.
20. The learned counsel for the defendant through DW-1 has produced 8 documents before the court. Ex.D- 1 is the authorization letter, Ex.D-2 is the list of officers recommended for U.N. Mission deployment, Ex.D-3 is the Fax message to Permanent Mission of India in United 20 O S No.7746/2006 Nations and it was issued in the matter of UN Civilian Police Officers. Ex.D-5 is the information issued to U.N. Mission requesting United Nation to nominate another person in the place of plaintiff. Ex.D-5 is the cancellation of nomination of plaintiff addressed by U.N.Mission to the defendant. Ex.D-6 is out going Fax message with regard to cancellation and intimating the cancellation of plaintiff's candidature. Ex.D-7 is the input received by the Ministry of Home Affairs from Dr. G.S.Rajagopal. Ex.D-8 is the letter addressed to the Additional Director General, Sashastra Seema Bal from Central Bureau of Investigation.
21. The plaintiff is required to establish before this court that, he was wrongfully deprived from serving in U.N. Mission at Sudan. For second issue he is expected to establish that, act of defendant was perse illegal, malafide and it is vindictive action, as a result of which he suffered great injustice, harm and injury. He is further required to show that, the action has affected his career, 21 O S No.7746/2006 prospectus and affected the reputation in addition to monitory loss. The plaintiff is further required to show that he is entitled for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards damages to his career, prospectus and future avenue, reputation, mental trauma, agony etc.,
22. On 06-02-2004 a recommendation was sent from the Government of Karnataka about the officers, who have expressed their willingness to participate in United Nations Missions at Sudan. The defendant has recommended the plaintiff for S.A.T. Test and later he was promoted as Inspector General of Police (IGP) on 12-12-2005. later the plaintiff has visited the United States to attend A.T.A. training 5413 course at Washington. He was also deputed for CIVPOL from 11-09-2004. The plaintiff has stated that, his name was even recommended by the United Nations and he was qualified for attending the U.N. Mission at Sudan as a Commando. He was qualified for the deployment of U.N.Mission and his candidature was solely rejected on 22 O S No.7746/2006 the input given by the C.B.I. stating that, an enquiry is pending against him.
23. The sum and substance of the cases of respective parties can be narrowed down to verify whether the act of defendant in recalling the candidature or canceling the candidature of plaintiff is illegal or not. Whether this court can decide as to whether the act of defendant is illegal etc., In order to show this fact, the plaintiff has produced nearly 34 documents, which are already described in the above paragraphs. The defendant on the other hand taken contention that, this court is not competent to decide the administrative matters and it has no jurisdiction to decide such aspects.
24. According to the plaintiff, he was interested to serve in U.N.Mission at Sudan and his name was recommended by the defendant and later United Nation has also accepted his candidature. Some elements within CBI, who are enemical towards the plaintiff has 23 O S No.7746/2006 allegedly played dominant role and they are successful in cancellation of candidature of plaintiff. According to the plaintiff Dr. G.S.Rajagopal had some enmity towards the plaintiff, as the plaintiff has conducted some enquiry regarding misappropriation of government property. Carrying such vengeance Dr. G.S.Rajagopal has submitted an input stating that there is an enquiry is pending. Based on the said input the candidature of the plaintiff was canceled etc.,
25. On the other hand defendant has contended that, the plaintiff cannot claim right to go for such U.N.Mission and it is the discretion of the defendant in selection of candidates. It is also contended that, merit by itself is not a criteria for deputing the officials for such mission.
26. On going through the records it is seen that, the name of the plaintiff was originally sent by the Government of Karnataka and the defendant has accepted the candidature of plaintiff and his name was 24 O S No.7746/2006 also recommended to United Nations. On going through Ex.D-3 a facsimile message was sent to Permanent Mission of India from United Nations Civilian Police Officers, wherein the nomination of plaintiff was accepted by United Nations. The plaintiff's name is shown in Sl.No.7 of Ex.D-3. Ex.D-2 is the list of candidates of 30 members, wherein the plaintiff's name is not shown. The plaintiff's candidature was overlooked and recalled by issuing letters Ex.D-4 to D-6. On going through Ex.D-4 it is stated that, a letter has been addressed by defendant to U.N. Mission intimating and requesting not to include the name of plaintiff and to nominate some other person etc., Ex.D-5 is another letter received from U.N. Mission to the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ex.D-6 is out going facsimile message, wherein in plaintiff's place one Mr. N.Vinayakumaran Nair was sent.
27. On going through the records and documents produced by both parties there is no dispute that, 25 O S No.7746/2006 initially the name of the plaintiff was recommended for attending U.N.Mission at Sudan and even United Nations has also accepted his candidature. Before finalization of candidates, a letter issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs informing the United Nations not to consider the candidature of plaintiff herein and another officer is nominated. The plaintiff has obtained some information under RTI Act to verify that, what is the reason for cancellation of his candidature. The Ministry of Home Affairs replied under RTI that, his name was cancelled due to input received from the C.B.I. stating that, an enquiry is pending against him at Anti Corruption Bureau, C.B.I., Bengaluru. He has also obtained a letter issued to Additional Director General, Sashastra Seema Bal, Ministry of Home Affairs from C.B.I. to A.C.B., Bengaluru intimating about certain events allegedly happened during the raid of house of wife of plaintiff.
28. On going through Ex.D-8 it is seen that, the wife of the plaintiff is also an I.A.S. Officer and her name 26 O S No.7746/2006 is Dr. B.Nagambika Devi. It is alleged that, she has misappropriated some amount in the matter of Varada Grameena Bank, Karvar, when she was the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, Karwar. It is stated in Ex.D-8 that when C.B.I. Officials raided her premises, they found one partly blank signed cheque, which was found in her personal diary. When the C.B.I. Officials tried to seize that cheque, the plaintiff herein has allegedly torn off the said cheque stating that, it is not related to the case etc., Later the C.B.I. officials have re-arranged the cheque pieces and intimated the same to their Higher Authorities. It also appears that, the C.B.I. has intimated these facts to the State Government to initiate disciplinary action against the plaintiff. The Government of Karnataka has dropped the proceedings and not initiated any action against the plaintiff. Later Ex.D-8 was addressed to Sashastra Seema Bal (S.S.B.) on 16-02-2005 and the input by Dr. G.S.Rajagopal was given as per Ex.D-7 on 14-03-2005.
27
O S No.7746/2006
29. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P-22, which is a document issued by the defendant in response to an application filed by the plaintiff under RTI Act. Some documents are enclosed to Ex.P-22 i.e., they are part of Ex.P-22. On going through the same, the defendant has received a note from Dr. G.S.Rajagopal, Additional Director General, wherein he has informed that, the plaintiff has tainted record deserves not to be retained on deputation to Government of India, particularly in view of the fact that information of such adverse nature is available. He has also requested the concerned department to repatriate the plaintiff in to the State of Karnataka. Another document, which is the part of Ex.P- 22 is the letter written by Dr. G.S.Rajagopal, wherein he has informed that, when the plaintiff is on deputation is Sashastra Seema Bal and C.B.I., Bengaluru Anti Corruption Bureau of C.B.I. has communicated that, an eqnuiry is pending against the plaintiff.
30. Another important document enclosed to Ex.P- 28
O S No.7746/2006 22 is the confidential report submitted to S.S.B. by the C.B.I., Bengaluru A.C.B., On going through the same, it is stated that, the C.B.I. has requested the State Government to initiate action against plaintiff. There is reference in the letter that, the wife of the present plaintiff by name Dr. D.Nagambika Devi, who was the then Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayath, Karwar, the C.B.I. found some incriminating documents in her house and particularly blank signed cheque was recovered from her personal bag. The plaintiff came to know about the seizure of such cheque, he torn that cheque in to pieces, but the C.B.I. officials have re- arranged said pieces. It is further stated in the said letter that, there is a transcript with regard to audio cassette recorded by Sri.B.M.Shastry, the Manager of the Bank. It is alleged in the letter that, the present plaintiff has intimidated the Bank Manager in respect of seizure of cheque and other aspects in the matter related to Varada Grameena Bank case. A Self Contained Note in RC(A)2000/BLR is also enclosed, 29 O S No.7746/2006 wherein it is stated that, the plaintiff's act is unbecoming of a public servant as much as he has snatched the cheque and torn it in the presence of the search team and suitable action has to be taken against him by the Government of Karnataka etc., the transcription of telephonic conversation is also enclosed to Ex.P-22. These documents are given in February- March of 2005. Based on the said documents and enclosures the Ministry of Home Affairs has taken the decision that, the deputation for U.N. Mission and recommendation of plaintiff to go for such Mission is withdrawn and the necessary instructions are given to Unite Nations for replacing the plaintiff with some other person.
31. The defendant admits that, Government of Karnataka has recommended the name of plaintiff being considered for deployment with U.N.Mission at Sudan and accordingly his nomination was then accepted and he was allowed to undergo U.N. S.A.T. Test. The 30 O S No.7746/2006 defendant has further admitted that, the plaintiff was taken on central deputation on 09-07-2004 with S.S.B. are remained there up to 22-11-2005. On repatriation the Government of Karnataka, the State Government has sent him for Foreign training in the month of June- 2006. According to the defendant during the currency of the plaintiff's tenure in S.S.B. an input was received from an Anti Corruption Bureau of C.B.I., Bengaluru and it was shared by S.S.B. with Ministry of Home Affairs. By considering the same, the Ministry of Home Affairs has taken decision not to consider the name of plaintiff for deputation etc.,
32. The plaintiff as well as the defendant have produced the documents before this court to show as to what is the basis for withdrawal of recommendation on the candidature of plaintiff to deployment with United Nations Mission. There is no dispute with regard to this. The plaintiff states that, there was absolutely no enquiry pending against the plaintiff and C.B.I. has not 31 O S No.7746/2006 filed any case against him and at the relevant point of time there was no enquiry pending against him etc., The defendant has stated that, the Government of India is a troop contributing country has to deploy police officers to United Nations to peace keeping Missions subject to exigency of service and select the said police officers after following the due procedure. It is further their defence that, in view of limited slots certain internal restrictions are also imposed by the Government of India. In view of the input received from CBI to S.S.B. his nomination which was under the consideration for deployment was reconsidered. The defendant has also contended that, the Government has no obligation towards its officers to send them on deputation, it is the prerogative of the Government whether to send or not to send any of its officers for deputation in a given point of time fulfilling all the criteria.
33. The learned counsel for the plaintiff 32 O S No.7746/2006 vehemently submitted that, there was absolutely no enquiry or case pending against the plaintiff when the deputation was canceled or withdrawn. She would further submit that, due to the enmity factor some officials in CBI have stalled the nomination of the plaintiff to the U.N.Mission.
34. One of the important facts for considering cases like this is, whether the administrative act of the government can be challenged before Civil Court or not. During the course of cross-examination of PW-1 it has been suggested to the plaintiff that, only the officers, with high degree of integrity and conduct are recommended to United Nations assignment. The plaintiff categorically admits this facts during the course of his cross-examination. He also states t hat, UN. DPKO is only a selecting body and he was selected by UN DKPO. PW-1 states that, Union of India sends the list of eligible officers to the said organization, which selects the officers from that list depending on its requirement. 33
O S No.7746/2006 According to the defendant the list of candidates are not forwarded by the defendant, but it is the list of qualified officers send to UN DPKO etc., During the course of cross-examination he also denies that, there was an adverse remarks by CBI against him. It is not disputed by the plaintiff that, based on the CBI request, State Government has started some proceedings against him and it was dropped later. The plaintiff himself has produced some documents showing that based on the allegations some enquiry was ordered against him and later it was dropped.
35. On going through Ex.P-13 the State Government has issued a show-cause notice against the R.P.Sharma and called for his explanation and ultimately the disciplinary proceedings are dropped. Ex.P-15 is produced before the court, wherein one of the notes recorded in para-53 about denial of permission about passport renewal in view of pendency of CBI complaint. Hence, one thing is clear that, the even the CBI 34 O S No.7746/2006 informed State Government alleging that, the plaintiff was involved in an act, which was unbecoming of a public servant etc., However, said request of CBI was not considered by the State Government and disciplinary proceedings are dropped by the State Government.
36. It is now well settled that, it is only for the State under law to take action against its officials including I.P.S. Officers. The CBI has informed the State Government about the alleged illegal act of the plaintiff alleging that, he has torn the cheque in front of CBI officials and he has also intimidated one of the witness etc., Hence, the fact remains that, there was some allegations against the plaintiff at relevant point of time. The plaintiff never dispute that, CBI has initiated any action against him at relevant point of time. Now the plaintiff states that, when CBI request was turned down by the the State Government and when disciplinary actions are dropped, there was no hurdle for the 35 O S No.7746/2006 defendant to send the plaintiff for U.N.Mission.
37. One of the important aspects in cases like this is, whether this Court can verify and decide as to whether the administrative act of defendant in not sending the plaintiff to U.N.Mission is correct or not. Admittedly, the defendant has the authority to select the candidate and not to select candidates. It is purely an administrative act. It is not the case of the plaintiff that, he has ever challenged the administrative act of defendant before the C.A.T. and it is not his case that, C.A.T. has implicated the defendant by holding that, the cancellation of deputation is illegal etc., If the present suit is filed after such verdict by Central Administrative Tribunal or any other competent authority, then things would have been different. Here is a case, wherein an administrative act of defendant is under challenge. This court is expected to decide the civil rights. There is no doubt that, the filing of suit for damages before civil court is maintainable, but the subject matter is virtually 36 O S No.7746/2006 an administrative act. If the administrative act of the defendant is shown as illegal, then only the plaintiff can claim damages. This court cannot independently decide as to whether the administrative act of the defendant is lawfully done or it is illegal or perse malafide etc., The civil courts are barred from deciding the correctness of administrative action taken by the Government and it is out of jurisdiction to decide and give findings on administrative acts of the parties concerned. Hence, the very root of the suit is shaken for not laying proper foundation for this suit. That apart, it appears to this court that the government has the authority to select any candidates and not to select any candidates. The Government's action in not selecting the plaintiff is purely an administrative act. Unless and until it is shown to this court that, the administrative act is held as illegal by any competent authority, the civil court will not get jurisdiction to decide the matter of damages. Here we have to see the distinction between suit for damages and the administrative act.
37
O S No.7746/2006
38. A suit for damages based on the verdict on any of administrative act can be definitely considered and damages can be quantified. When the very act of the administrative act is challenged before this court, this court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute on administrative action. Hence, this court feels that, the very suit touches the administrative act of the defendant, an administrative act of defendant cannot be a lis between the parties before the civil court. As already stated if the plaintiff had challenged the administrative act before the C.A.T. and if C.A.T. has given any findings against such administrative act, then the civil court would get the jurisdiction to quantify the damages if any in accordance with law.
39. In view of the above findings, this court is of the view that, the act of defendant cannot be held as malafide, unreasonable or illegal in the absence of any verdict on the administrative act of defendant. In the absence of showing that, the administrative act of 38 O S No.7746/2006 defendant is held as illegal by the Tribunal, this court cannot hold that such act is perse illegal.
40. The plaintiff has produced voluminous documents before the court to show that, his name was illegally not recommended, even after recommendation by United Nations it was recalled etc., These documents would have been helpful to the plaintiff if any verdict by C.A.T. is produced, which is on the administrative act of defendant. As things stands today, the order passed by the defendant in rejecting the nomination of plaintiff or withdrawing his deputation cannot be find fault with. It is always prerogative of the Government to select any officers for deputation, especially for places like United Nations Mission, the officials of highest degree of integrity are normally deputed to such U.N. Mission. This fact is admitted by the plaintiff also during the course of cross-examination.
41. Admittedly, there was an input by the C.B.I. and S.S.B. before the Government and the Ministry of 39 O S No.7746/2006 Home Affairs and they are required to consider all those aspects before giving clearance for deputation. In the absence of showing that the defendant has committed illegal act of administration, it is not proper to hold that, the administrative act is illegal. Until and unless the administrative act is challenged before the competent authority, the plaintiff cannot maintain this type of suit in order to grant relief in this suit. This court has to necessarily verify as to whether the administrative act of the defendant is correct or legal. Until and unless such opinion is formed, this court cannot quantify the damages.
42. The defendant has placed certain materials before this court to show that, during the currency of the plaintiff in Sashastra Seema Bal there was an input by the C.B.I. and based on the C.B.I report they have taken some action in withdrawing the nomination of the plaintiff etc., Such an administrative act cannot be interfered with by the civil court and the civil court is not 40 O S No.7746/2006 expected to form any opinion to hold that, the administrative act of the defendant is illegal etc., This is because, Civil Courts are not expected to give findings on any administrative act of the government.
43. The plaintiff has made allegation that he was wrongfully deprived from serving in U.N.Mission at Sudan. It is further alleged that there was illegal, malafide and vindictive action by the defendant. These allegations virtually points out about the administrative act of the defendant. Until and unless the very act of defendant is challenged before the Administrative Tribunal, the Civil Court independently cannot decide by holding that, the act of defendant is illegal or malafide. There is no doubt that, the plaintiff has produced certain documents to show that, he has initiated some action against Dr. G.S.Rajagopal and the said person allegedly carried prejudice and recommended the government stating that, the plaintiff is a tainted officer etc., According to the plaintiff, it is a vindictive action by the 41 O S No.7746/2006 officials. He has produced certain documents before this court to this effect. However, the said act is also an administrative act.
44. Admittedly Dr. G.S.Rajagopal was the top official and he has recommended some inputs to the government and based on his recommendation and instructions the government has taken certain decisions. All these things amounts to administrative act only. Hence, the root of the plaintiff's suit is shaken by not initiating any suit or petition before C.A.T. in the matter of his cancellation of deputation to the U.N.Mission. For what ever observation and findings in suit like this, court has to first required to form an opinion whether the act of defendant in not sending the plaintiff on deputation is correct or not. Such findings can be ascertained only after verifying the administrative act. This court is not empowered to look into the administrative act of any government. The civil dispute arise only if any findings is given on administrative act and it is based on such 42 O S No.7746/2006 administrative act a suit can be filed before this court. Until and unless the administrative verdict is produced before this court, the suit for damages is mere a formality and nothing can be decided against the defendant.
45. In view of these facts, this court's jurisdiction has a very limited scope in deciding the matter like this. On going through the records, documents and evidence one thing is very clear that, based on some input the government has taken certain administrative decision and based on that decision, the plaintiff's nomination to the U.N. Mission was canceled and it was substituted by some other officer. Hence, it is purely an administrative act and in the absence of showing that, such administrative act is perse illegal, damages cannot be quantified in a suit for damages. There is absolutely no doubt that, the tribunal has no power to decide the matter with regard to damages. It is always the civil courts, which has the domain to decide the suit for damages. However, in order to ascertain the damages 43 O S No.7746/2006 in cases like this, first the plaintiff has to show that, the administrative act is already held as illegal by a competent authority. In the absence of showing that administrative act is already held as illegal by any competent authority, it is not proper for this court to hold that, the act of government is illegal or malafide.
46. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently submitted that, the defendant is liable to pay damages for its malicious act. She has further submitted that, there is willful injustice, harm, injuries and loss occasioned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has stated that, in the event of his deputation he would have drawn salary of $172 per day in addition to the reputation and progression in his carrier. In order to verify whether it was willful injustice etc., the very legality of the act of defendant has to be decided. Admittedly, the act of defendant is an administrative act in nature. Hence, the effect of such an administrative act has already been discussed in the above 44 O S No.7746/2006 paragraphs. In the absence of showing that, the administrative act was totally illegal and it was declared by the competent Tribunal that such act is perse illegal etc., this court cannot form any opinion.
47. Apart from that, the defendant has shown to this court why at the relevant point of time due to input by the C.B.I. Department the defendant has withdrawn the deputation or cancelled the nomination. The defendant has also produced 8 documents before this court. The official of defendant got herself examined as DW-1 and she has reiterated the written-statement averments. The defence of the defendant that, it is prerogative of the government and it can select its officials for deputation based on so many other factors etc., are all valid grounds. It has been specifically stated by the defendant that, deputation/deployment with foreign agency depends on number of factors, which are to be considered holistically in a given point of time. It has also contended that, there was a limited slots and 45 O S No.7746/2006 the same has compelled the government for internal restrictions etc., These defence are valid defence in the absence of showing that, the cancellation of deputation has been illegally done.
48. The plaintiff has produced number of documents. Even some documents are produced to show that, he has conducted some enquiry about misappropriation of property against one of the officials of C.B.I. etc., The documents and evidence placed before this court by the plaintiff is not useful, as the very act of defendant is an administrative act. An administrative act can be considered as illegal only if any finding is given by the proper Tribunal on such act. This court is not empowered to come to any conclusion or to give any finding that, act of defendant is illegal etc.,
49. On plain reading of the defence of the defendant, they have shown some valid grounds for not deputing the plaintiff. There is no doubt that, the 46 O S No.7746/2006 plaintiff was initially recommended, but later the recommendation was withdrawn by canceling the deputation. Admittedly, the Ministry has received an input from C.B.I. officials. According to the C.B.I. officials they have recommended the State Government to initiate action against the plaintiff for some criminal wrong. The said request was not considered by the state government and the state government has dropped the disciplinary action against the plaintiff. Whether not considering the request for investigation against the plaintiff and closure of any proceedings has to be understood in proper perspective. There is no doubt that, state government is the authority to decide any disciplinary action against its officials including I.P.S. Officers
50. Here is a case on hand, wherein an input of CBI Officers are given to the Ministry of Home Affairs after closure of proceedings against the plaintiff. The C.B.I. has not initiated any action as it is stated before 47 O S No.7746/2006 this court that, government has not given permission to them in this regard etc., Admittedly, no cases are filed by the C.B.I. against the plaintiff for the alleged wrong committed by him. However, C.B.I. has explained as to what are all happened with the plaintiff as per the reports furnished, which are enclosed to Ex.P-22. On going through these documents one can not form an opinion that, the act of defendant was totally arbitrary, as this court has already observed that, any findings against the plaintiff or the defendant in the matter of deputation should be decided in a proper forum. This court cannot give any finding on the administration action of the defendant. Under these circumstances, the documents and evidence placed before this court by the plaintiff in order to show that, there was wrongful act on the part of defendant etc., is not proved before this court. Similarly, an allegation that the act of defendant is illegal, malafide and vindictive action are also not proved before this court. In view of the findings above, the plaintiff cannot claim damages based on the 48 O S No.7746/2006 administrative act of the defendant until and unless it is shown that, the administrative act of defendant is held as illegal by any Tribunal competent to deal with such matters. Having regard to all these facts, the plaintiff has failed to prove Issues No.1 to 3 to the satisfaction of the court. Hence, Issues No.1 to 3 are answered in negative.
51. ISSUES No.4 TO 6 :: The plaintiff has contended that, the cause of action arose at Bengaluru. The defendant has contended in the additional written statement that, on three points that this court will not get jurisdiction. According to the defendant this court has jurisdiction of 3 kinds...
(I) Jurisdiction as to the subject matter.
(ii) Jurisdiction as to the value of the suit on pecuniary jurisdiction.
(iii) Jurisdiction as to the place of suing or territorial jurisdiction.
According to the defendant the subject matter of plaintiff is related to service conditions. The defendant 49 O S No.7746/2006 also states that, since competent authority has not approved the deployment of plaintiff the pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be claimed. Finally the jurisdiction as to place of suing i.e., territorial jurisdiction is questioned. According to the defendant the Ministry of Home Affairs is located in Delhi and the plaintiff has to file his grievance before the C.A.T., Delhi. The defendant is the Ministry of Home Affairs and it has presence jurisdiction all over India and governed through officers of defendant all over India including the city of Bengaluru. In addition to this, all India service are the part of defendant's establishment and by deployment of all India Service Officers the defendant performs its statutory functions and duties. Hence, it can be simply held that, the defendant is located in every part of the country including Bengaluru.
52. This court has already held that, this court cannot give any findings on the administrative action taken by the defendant, as it is the domain of Central 50 O S No.7746/2006 Administrative Tribunal. However, suit for damages can be filed before this civil court. Present suit on hand is a suit for damages. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a decision reported in AIR 1996 S.C. 1760 - H.Mukherjee Vs. S.K.Bhargava has clearly held that, suit for damages certainly not within province of Section 14 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, but Civil Court has jurisdiction to build with the matter under Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The Central Administrative Tribunal has limited jurisdiction restricted in view of the matter set out in Section 14(1)(a to c) of the Act and suit for damages will not come within the purview of the said act. The relief of damages/compensation does not falls under any of the said clause as per findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said case. The suit for damages based on tortuous act of the defendant with a view to harass the plaintiff etc., can be filed before a Civil Court. The frame of the present suit is suit for damages hence, the suit for damages can be filed only before this court. Hence, 51 O S No.7746/2006 there is no merits in the objections raised by the defendant in this regard.
53. Now coming to the territorial jurisdiction Section 19 is applicable to the present set of facts. The plaintiff claims that the communication Dated:
06-02-2004 as per Ex.P-17 are recommending the plaintiff to U.N. Mission was dispatched from Bengaluru and intimated to the plaintiff at Bengaluru. The nominations Dated; 26-08-2005 of the Police Officers, who have qualified for U.N. S.A.T. Test was downloaded by the defendant's Website at Bengaluru. The plaintiff has also filed application of Right to Information Act from Bengaluru and information was provided to him in Bengaluru. Hence, U/s. 19 of C.P.C. the cause of action for filing this suit arose at Bengaluru. Hence, this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide this case.
54. On going through the written-statement the defendant has no doubt used the word Territorial Jurisdiction, but while describing the territorial 52 O S No.7746/2006 jurisdiction it has been specifically stated that, this court will not get territorial jurisdiction, as it is covered by Central Administrative Tribunal jurisdiction etc., Hence, the defendant wants to show that, only C.A.T. has jurisdiction and not the civil court etc., In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supeme Court only the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the matter of damages. This court has clearly held that, administrative acts have to be decided at the C.A.T., but damages can be decided by the Civil Court. This court has not granted the relief for the plaintiff only on the ground that, there is no finding on administrative act of the defendant related to cancellation of deputation of plaintiff by a competent C.A.T. That does not necessarily mean that, this court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit for damages. The suit for damages is required to be filed before the civil court only. Hence, there is no merits in the defence taken by the defendant that, this court has no jurisdiction to try and decide this suit. In view of the same, the plaintiff has proved that, part of cause of 53 O S No.7746/2006 action has been taken place at Bengaluru and defendant has failed to show that, this court has no jurisdiction. Hence, Issue No.4 is answered in affirmative and Issue No.5 is answered in negative.
55. Now coming to Issue No-6, the defendant has contended that, the suit is not maintainable, as it is a service matter and C.A.T. has jurisdiction in view of the above decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The law is very clear that, a suit for damages can be filed only before the civil court. A suit for damages cannot be filed before the C.A.T., as the domain of C.A.T. is only service matters covered under the Central Administrative Tribunal Act. Accordingly, this court is of the view that, suit is maintainable when a suit is filed for damage alleging tortuous liability of defendant. This court has given findings in Issues No.1 to 3 that it cannot form opinion on administrative side. Based on the reasons given in Issues No.1 to 3 this court has clearly stated that, an administrative action has to be questioned 54 O S No.7746/2006 before a competent authority and only after such finding given in tribunal, a damages suit can be filed claiming damages.
56. Under this issue we are discussing as to whether a suit for damages is maintainable or not. If the plaintiff is able to show before the court that, a Tribunal has passed orders against defendant on the question of administration injustice, then plaintiff is entitled for damages in accordance with law. In this case, the plaintiff has claimed damages questioning the administrative act of the defendant and this court for the reasons stated in Issues No.1 to 3 has rejected his prayer. In so far as jurisdiction is concerned, a suit for damages is maintainable before civil court and civil court alone. Hence, Issue No-6 is answered in negative.
57. ISSUE NO-7 :: The plaintiff has contended that, the defendant has not replied to Section 80 CPC notice and he has produced the circular issued by the Central Government directing all the concerned 55 O S No.7746/2006 department to issue reply to the notice issued U/s. 80 CPC to minimize the litigation against government. There is not doubt that, such circular is issued by the Government. Whether non issuance of reply to statutory notice given any benefit to the plaintiff is depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. For any stretch of imagination the said act cannot be construed as admission of any fact. Parties are required to prove their case as per provisions Civil Procedure and as per Evidence Act. In view of findings of this court on Issues No.1 to 3 the plaintiff is not entitled for any damages at the hands of defendant at this stage. This court cannot quantify the damages, as the very subject matter of claiming such damages is related to an administrative act of the defendant. When such administrative act is not declared as illegal by the competent authorities, no damages can be awarded by a civil court. Having regard to all these facts, the plaintiff has failed to prove the case against defendant. Hence, proceed to pass the following...
56
O S No.7746/2006 ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.
Draw Decree Accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on the 24th day of October, 2019).
(K. Narayana Prasad), LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF ::
P.W.1 :: Dr. R.P.Sharma LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT ::
D.W.1 :: Smt. Renu Sarin
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFF ::
Ex.P-1 :: Letter regarding Deployment of Civil Police
Officer with UN Mission in Sudan
Ex.P-2 :: Copy of Letter Dated: 31-08-2005
57
O S No.7746/2006
Ex.P-3 :: Copy of Letter Dated: 27-10-2005
Ex.P-4 :: Copy of information
Ex.P-5 :: Copy of letter dated: 26-12-2005
Ex.P-6 :: Copy of letter dated: 04-02-2006
Ex.P-7 :: Copy of Legal Notice U/s. 80 CPC
P-7(a)(b): Postal receipts
Ex.P-8 :: Postal acknowledgement
Ex.P-9 & 10:: Endorsements from Postal Department Ex.P-11 :: Office Memorandum issued by Joint Secretary and Legal Advisor.
Ex.P-12 :: OM Issued by Ministry of Law and Justice. Ex.P-13 :: Xerox copy of proceedings of Government of Karnataka Dt. 04-12-2003 Ex.P-14 :: Attested copy of Proceedings of Government of Karnataka Dt. 04-12-2003 Ex.P-15 :: Attested copy of proceedings of note file of Government of Karnataka for the year 2004 P-15(a) :: Relevant note at Sl.No.60 Ex.P-16 :: Certified copy of entire proceedings in O.A.No.134/2005 before CAT, New Delhi. Ex.P-17 :: Self attested copy of clearance certificate Dt. 06-02-2004 issued by Government of Karnataka Ex.P-18 :: Self attested copy of various police medals downloaded from INTERNET.58
O S No.7746/2006 Ex.P-19 :: Self attested copy of certificate for police medal awarded by President of India. Ex.P-20 :: Affidavit of Mrs. Renu Sarin in MA No.2005 Dated: 14-12-2005 Ex.P-21 :: Copy of order Dated: 16-09-2013 passed by the Information Commissioner. Ex.P-22 :: Reply letter written to the plaintiff from the Director(Police and CPIO)Dated:07-10-2013 Ex.P-23 :: Fax message from the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Bengaluru Dated:
22-11-2015.
Ex.P-24 :: Letter Dated: 08-11-2005 Ex.P-25 :: Acknowledgement Dr; 08-11-2005 Ex.P-26 :: Letter Dated: 27-06-2006 Ex.P-27 :: Letter Dated: 21-06-2007 Ex.P-28 :: Letter dated: 13-07-2007 Ex.P-29 & Ex.P-30 :: Acknowledgements related to Ex.P-28 Ex.P-31 & Ex.P-32 :: Letter Dated: 08-04-2011 and its empty cover Ex.P-33 :: Certified copy of Order in OA No.1546/2013 Ex.P-34 :: Policy guidelines 59 O S No.7746/2006 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS::
Ex.D-1 :: Authorization by the Joint Secretary (Police-
II), Ministry of Home Affairs.
Ex.D-2 :: Attested copy of Fax message Dt. 8/9 April 2005 Ex.D-3 :: Attested copy of the message Ex.D-4 :: Attested copy of Fax message Ex.D-5 & 6 :: Copy of the Fax Message from UNDPKCR, UN HQ.
Ex.D-7 :: Letter issued by the Addl. Director General Dated: 14-03-2005 Ex.D-8 :: Letter of Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Bengaluru Dated: 16-02-2005 (K. Narayana Prasad), LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
60 O S No.7746/2006