Delhi District Court
Sh. Amir Ahmad vs Union Of India on 14 January, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF DIG VINAY SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, (CENTRAL) 04, THC, DELHI
Date of institution : 12.11.1993
Judgment reserved on : 14.01.2013
Judgment delivered on : 14.01.2013
CS No.80/08/93(New) Unique Case ID No. 02401C133232006
CS No.2574/93 (Old)
Sh. Amir Ahmad
Director
Regional Geology Division (Meghalaya)
Geological Survey of India
North Eastern Region
Post Box No.11, P.O. Laitumkhrah,
Shillong-793003 Plaintiff.
Versus
1 Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Mines, Department of Mines,
Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2 The Director General,
Geological Survey of India,
27-Jawahar Lal Nehru Road
Calcutta-700016.
3. The Dy. Director General,
Geological Survey of India,
Northern Region, GSI Complex,
Sector-E, Aliganj,
Lucknow.
4. The Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation
New Delhi.
CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 1 of 44 h.l.
2
5. The Superintendent of Police
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Srinagar Branch, 24, Gopal Bhawan,
New Rehari, Jammu (J & K).
6. Sh. D.P. Dhaundial
Director General (Retd.)
C/o Director General,
Geological Survey of India,
27-Jawahar Lal Nehru Road
Calcutta-700016.
7. Sh. S.K. Mukherjee,
Director General (Retd.)
C/o Director General,
Geological Survey of India,
27-J. L. Nehru Road
Calcutta-700016.
8. Sh. S.N. Chaturvedi
Director General (Retd.)
C/o Director General,
Geological Survey of India,
27-J. L. Nehru Road
Calcutta-700016.
9. Sh. C. Tripathi
Dy. Director General (Retd.)
C/o Director General,
Geological Survey of India,
27-J. L. Nehru Road
Calcutta-700016.
10. Sh. V.K. Raina
Dy. Director General (Retd.)
C/o Director General,
Geological Survey of India,
27-J. L. Nehru Road
Calcutta-700016.
CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 2 of 44 h.l.
3
11. Sh. Jagdish Lal
Director of Administration (Retd.)
C/o Director General,
Geological Survey of India,
27-J. L Nehru Road
Calcutta-700016.
12. Sh. M. Dutta
Director
Drilling Division, Eastern Region,
Geological Survey of India,
DF-BLock, MSO Building, Salt Lake,
Calcutta-64.
PIN-700064.
13. Sh. M.M. Munshi
Director (Retd.)
C/o Director General,
Geological Survey of India,
27-J. L. Nehru Road
Calcutta-700016.
14. Sh. Om Prakash
Director (Retd.)
Geological Survey of India,
3-E, New Patliputra Road,
PATNA-13 (BIHAR).
15. Sh. K.B. Raina
Geologist (Sr)
C/o Director,
Geological Survey of India,
2-3C/C, Gandhinagar, Jammu (J&K)
16. Sh. M.K. Bhatt
Inspector of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation
SIC-II, New Delhi.
17. Sh. A. Alavandhan
Assistant
CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 3 of 44 h.l.
4
C/o Dy. Director General,
Geological Survey of India,
Northern Region,
GSI Complex, Sector-E,
Aliganj, Lucknow. ... Defendants.
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for damages and compensation. The plaintiff has arrayed as many as 17 defendants in the suit, from Union of India to the Director/Deputy Director Level officers of Geographical Survey of India as also the Director of CBI, Superintendent of Police of CBI and an Inspector of CBI. The prolix plaint runs into 78 pages.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the plaintiff is that he was working as Senior Geologist in Kashmir Circle of Geographical Survey of India (GSI for short), Sri Nagar, in November, 1980. As per him, on 15th and 17th November 1980 he was instructed by his Director Sh. D.B. Ghosh, to accompany the defendant No.17 Sh. A. Alavandhan ('A' for short) to supervise procurement of 150 Quintals of Hard Coke, which was required for heating purposes of two office Buildings in Sri Nagar, during winter season. The Hard Coke was to be procured form M/s Abdul Rehman & Co., Sri Nagar. Plaintiff claims that this purchase order of 150 Quintals of Coke was orally revised by the Director to 260 Quintals. Accordingly 260 Quintals of hard Coke was procured by 'A'. It is claimed that at that time due to absence of a regular store keeper 'A' was looking after the job of store, temporarily, at the instructions of the Director D.B. Ghosh. 'A' was under overall supervision of the drawing and disbursing officer, the defendant No. 15, Sh. K.B. Raina ('K' for short).
CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 4 of 44 h.l.
52.1 Plaintiff alleges that 'A' and 'K' made necessary entries in the relevant stock register showing distribution of 260 Quintals of Hard Coke, i.e. 120 Quintals to Vani House Building and 120 Quintals to Nilopher Building in Sri Nagar. However, no day to day record of distribution of this hard Coke was maintained. It was not objected to by Sh. D.B. Ghosh. The physical custody and possession of 260 Quintals of hard Coke was taken on 17/18 November, 1980 by the Store Keeping Authorities and thereafter the plaintiff left Sri Nagar on 21.11.1980 to attend a Seminar at Dehradun from where he proceeded to Lukhnow and remained outstation till 17.01.1981. According to him, he had nothing to do with the stock of Hard Coke. In his absence 'A' & 'K' moved an office file on 21.11.1980 recommending payment of Hard Coke to M/s Abdul Rehman & co. and they obtained a sanction of Rs. 27,560/- from Sh. D.B. Ghosh. Payment was made through a cheque dated 08.12.1980. Allegedly the said cheque was not crossed as account payee cheque and allegedly the said cheque went to the account of One Mohd. Sultan & Co. and not the seller Abdul Rehman & Co. 'K' handed over the charge of DDO to defendant No.14 Om Prakash ('O' for short) in second week of December, 1980 and proceeded on long leave. At that time no shortage of Hard Coke was detected in the stocks of the two buildings.
2.2 However, in the third week of 1980 some shortage was detected for the first time. Plaintiff claims that as soon as the shortage in Stock of hard coke was detected Sh. D.B. Ghosh handed over the charge to 'O' and proceeded on long leave. 'O' referred the matter to Deputy Director General, Northern Region of GSI (the defendant No.3) and sought his instructions. Defendant No.3 advised 'O' to file an FIR with CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 5 of 44 h.l.
6Local Police but it was deliberately delayed by 'O' till 05.01.1981, which gave opportunity to 'A' to enter into collusion with CBI Officials. CBI Officials were invited to take over the matter by 'A' who allegedly was a noted Trade Unionist he had links with CBI. The CBI Officials, i.e. defendant No.5 & 16, allegedly without permission of the departmental authorities entered the premises of GSI on the pretext of surprise checking on 26.12.1980 and took over the matter of shortage of hard Coke, without there being any referral from Government of India or GSI.
2.3 'A' gave a false statement before CBI on 26.12.1980 implicating the plaintiff to the effect that he had informed the plaintiff about defective measurement and weight in procurement of hard Coke but the plaintiff told him that he will not be not responsible when a senior officer (the plaintiff), was present with him. 'A' also gave a statement that the plaintiff had signed receipt of hard Coke from the supplier. Plaintiff claims that this false statement was given by 'A' in collusion with CBI to implicate the plaintiff, and the CBI on the basis of it registered a case No. RC 3/81-SPE at Sri Nagar against the plaintiff.
2.4 It is the case of plaintiff that thereafter prosecution of the plaintiff continued for 11 years up till 1991, whereas, others were responsible for theft, mismanagement and misappropriation. As per the case of the plaintiff the defendants were in collusion with each other to unnecessarily fix and harass the plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that CBI wanted to protect the actual culprits and therefore, it took up the matter and tried to hush up the matter. CBI did not allow the local Police to complete the investigation and ultimately local police CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 6 of 44 h.l.
7expressed its inability to take up the case since CBI had already taken over the case.
2.5 Plaintiff also claims that the FIR dated 05.01.1981, which was registered with the local Police indicates that on 17.11.1980, 'A' took out around 10 quintals of hard Coke in an official vehicle from a Nilofer building to be taken to Vani House building, but the said Coke disappeared and never reached the destination. Matter was enquired into and a report was submitted by Sh.B.L. Kaul, Committee, which was consigned to the record by Sh. D.B. Ghosh, on the pretext that the CBI was already enquiring the matter.
2.6 Plaintiff claims that CBI recorded statement of witnesses against the plaintiff behind his back and plaintiff specifically requested the Superintendent of Police (defendant No.5), vide letter dated 30.01.1981, to record his statement but he was told that his statement was not required. Even the investigating Officer of CBI (defendant No.
16), submitted his report behind the back of plaintiff in 1981 without giving opportunity to the plaintiff to explain correct facts. Allegedly the report of investigating officer of CBI was fabricated, manufactured, had false evidence against the plaintiff, and was based on unsigned statements of witnesses. Plaintiff claims that those witnesses denied having given any such statement.
2.7 CBI ultimately submitted its final report on 23.09.1981 for action to be taken by the department of the plaintiff, but no action was taken by the defendant No.7 since he wanted to protect D.B. Ghosh, 'A', 'K' and others. Plaintiff claims that he was made a scape goat.
CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 7 of 44 h.l.
82.8 Plaintiff also claims that the defendant No. 6, 7 and 9, in order to protect Sh. D.B. Ghosh and other offenders falsely claimed before Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad that CBI found the plaintiff guilty and that the Director General of GSI was convinced on the basis of alleged substantive evidence collected by the CBI. Plaintiff claims that the defendants had no right to make reckless and wild accusations and imputations against the plaintiff, and without holding an enquiry the statements taken by CBI should not have been taken into consideration by the defendants particularly when the fact finding committee comprising of defendant No. 10, 11 and 12, failed to submit its report.
2.9 Plaintiff calls it a case of deliberate lawlessness and outrageous conduct of the Government Officials i.e. defendant No.1 to 17, because of which plaintiff suffered mental agony, defamation, loss of reputation, besides violation of his fundamental rights and personal liberty by withholding permission to obtain a passport and by causing hindrances in carrier progression and other benefits to the plaintiff.
2.10 The preliminary enquiring committee consisting of defendant no. 10, 11 and 12 neither interrogated Sh. D.B. Ghosh, nor sought any clarification. 'A' refused to appear before the committee. 'A' also refused to appear before the formal enquiry conducted by defendant No.13, but no appropriate punishment was awarded to him. As per the plaintiff, 'A' & 'K' committed various serious irregularities in the transaction in question, as described in Para 26 of his plaint, but they were deliberately tried to be shielded by the other defendants. Despite the fact that the CBI submitted its report in 1981 and Sh. D. B. Ghosh CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 8 of 44 h.l.
9expired in the year 1984, statement of Sh. D.B. Ghosh was not recorded by the preliminary enquiry committee, deliberately. Plaintiff claims that the defendant No.6 D.P. Dhandiyal submitted some report at the back of plaintiff without supplying copy of the same to the plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that the investigating officer of CBI also preferred to not attend the enquiry and avoided the cross-examination. He claims that in the process all norms of natural justice were violated.
2.11 Plaintiff claims that he was wrongfully charge sheeted by his department. Plaintiff claims that the issuance of false departmental charge sheet to him in 1987 was malafide and it was deliberately kept pending for long out of vindictiveness. It is claimed that defendant No. 6 was inimical towards the plaintiff and therefore he maliciously issued a false charge sheet dated 02.03.1987 against the plaintiff. The charge sheet itself was served 6 years and 3 ½ months from the date of alleged misconduct. Thereafter the enquiry was abruptly closed in 1989 without any intimation to the plaintiff and without even calling the defence statement and witnesses of the plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that in the departmental enquiry, he was exonerated on 24.10.1991 as the inconclusive enquiry was dropped against him, therefore, Sh. D.B. Ghosh, 'A' & 'K' ought to have been charge sheeted and prosecuted in Criminal Court of Law, but it was not done. Admittedly the plaintiff was exonerated from departmental enquiry on 24.10.1991.
2.12 Plaintiff also claims that he filed a petition before Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, which was decided in favour of the plaintiff on 15.07.1988. Despite directions of CAT dated 15.07.1988 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 9 of 44 h.l.
10plaintiff within four months from the date of receipt of order, the disciplinary proceedings were not finally decided this way or that way and instead a review petition was filed on the ground that plaintiff was not cooperating in the departmental proceedings. Allegedly the applications and review petitions were rejected on 28.04.1989, but still the enquiry was not concluded within four months. The defendants also did not take care to resolve the differences of opinion expressed by CBI in its final report and the submissions of the department before Central Administrative Tribunal, before issuing charge sheet to the plaintiff.
2.13 Plaintiff also claims that despite directions of CAT, the plaintiff was not considered for promotion in the DPC held on 08.02.1990, which was done deliberately by defendant No.6, and the plaintiff was deliberately not given his dues. He was not even considered for Ad-hoc Promotion and instead the recommendation of DPC was kept in sealed cover and juniors were promoted. The defendants, allegedly, mislead the CAT Tribunal and obtained a wrong order dated 15.07.1991 from CAT as it was not based on record placed before the Tribunal.
2.14 The plaintiff goes on to the extent of claiming that even the CAT did not apply its mind to the fact that disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff had been concluded and therefore, the sealed cover procedure could not have been applied in the case of plaintiff.
2.15 Plaintiff also claims that 'A' had sent a letter No.11/88/CAT/87 dated 22.06.1987 through one Sh P.C. Mathur, Director In charge of GSI, Sri Nagar, accusing the plaintiff inter-alia being anti-national. This letter CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 10 of 44 h.l.
11was sent to the Deputy Registrar, CAT with copies to defendant No. 2, 3 and 6 and the Minister of Steel and Mines and the President of National Confederation of Central Government Employees and Workers, New Delhi. The action of Sh. P.C. Mathur, in officially forwarding such a slanderous communication to all concerned, including the plaintiff, and the silence of the defendant No.6 suggests, as per the plaintiff, that the entire Geological Survey of India was in connivance with 'A' while making all kinds of accusations against the plaintiff and they wanted to defame the plaintiff.
2.16 Plaintiff also claims that denial of permission for passport to him was defamation and caused loss of reputation and mental agony to the plaintiff. Plaintiff also claims that his annual confidential report for the period March 1991 has been spoiled.
2.17 Plaintiff claims that as a result, the plaintiff suffered immensely and thus, was entitled to compensation amount of Rs.11.00 lakh in the form of damages. However, the plaintiff restricted his claim to a sum of Rs.6.00 lakh only on account of inability to pay court fees.
2.18 Plaintiff claims that the cause of action in his favour arose on 24.10.1991 when he was exonerated from the enquiry and accordingly plaintiff filed an application before CAT Guwahati Bench, claiming Rs. 11.00 lakhs as damages, but the Tribunal observed, vide order dated 17.11.1992, that it had no jurisdiction and the plaintiff can approach appropriate forum.
CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 11 of 44 h.l.
122.19 Plaintiff thus claims a decree of Rs.6.00 lakhs as damages against all the 17 defendants jointly and severally along with interest @ 20 % per annum along with the cost of the suit.
3. Defendant no. 1 to 3, contested the suit and denied all the allegations of the plaintiff in their written statement. They aver, that factually the plaintiff was deputed to supervise procurement of 150 Quintals of Hard coke, in writing, from M/s Abdul Rehman & Co. It is stated that the plaintiff along with 'A' supervised the procurement of Hard coke on 15.11.1980 & 17.11.1980, respectively, from M/s Abdul Rahman and further also supervised the weight and transportation of the Hard Coke to GSI Office Wani House and Nilofar Building, Srinagar. It is stated that the coke was received by the plaintiff in two parts i.e. 60 Qntls on 15.11.1980 and 200 Qtls on 17.11.1980 and that the entries of having received full quantity of the Hard Coke of 260 Qtls were made in the Stock Register by 'A' on the basis of the certificate given by the plaintiff who purchased/procured the same.
3.1 It is claimed that the plaintiff also appended a certificate on the bill of M/s Abdul Rehman & co. regarding receiving of 260 Qtls of Hard Coke for which payment of Rs.27,560/- was made to the firm. It is stated that payment of Rs.27,560/- was recommended and sanctioned by the Director on the basis of certificate of the plaintiff. It is stated that an open cheque instead of an account payee cheque for Rs.27,560/- being the cost of 260 Qntls of coal was issued in favour of M/s Abdul Rahman who never made complaint regarding non-receiving of payment.
CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 12 of 44 h.l.
133.2 It is stated on behalf of defendants no.1 to 3 that the coal was weighed by the firm on Wooden balance instead of Dharam Kata in presence of plaintiff and 'A' . Further the coal was loaded in the truck and was transported to GSI Building Wani House and Nilofer Building, Srinagar on 15.11.1980 & 17.11.1980. Lateran, shortage of coal was detected and due to which loss of Rs.15,642/- approximately was sustained by the Government.
3.3 It is denied by the defendants that Sh. D. B. Ghosh, the then Director, Kashmir Circle, GSI, Srinagar verbally requested the plaintiff for procurement of 260 Qtls instead of 150 Qtls Coke. It is further averred that although 'A' has been referred to as a Store Keeper and Care Taker, but, he was then an Assistant in the Administration & Accounts. Further he along with the plaintiff were only deputed for procurement of the coal, although he did not sign the certificate qua the receiving of exact quantity of coal and only plaintiff signed & certified it.
3.4 It is also claimed that departmental inquiry was initiated against the plaintiff vide a memorandum no. 275/C/13011/S/91/Vig. dated 02.03.1987, after there were surprise checks conducted by the CBI on 26.12.1980 & 27.12.1980, which proved that the plaintiff was indulged in committing fraud. Although a case was registered by CBI, but he was not prosecuted in any Court of Law. Subsequently, departmental enquiry was initiated against him in which he was exonerated. It is further stated that disciplinary action was initiated against the plaintiff in consultation of Central Vigilance Commission and Ministry of Mines. Action was delayed as some procedures were to be followed after consulting CVC and UPSC.
CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 13 of 44 h.l.
143.5 The defendant No. 1, 2 and 3 claims that even 'A' was also charge sheeted for shortage of hard coke but the disciplinary authority took a lenient view and exonerated him also.
3.6 Regarding the allegations that on 17.11.1980 'A' committed theft and misappropriation of about 10 quintals of hard coke, the defendants claim that the fact finding committee consisting of Sh.B.L. Kaul and Sh. V.T. Mathur reported that there was no office records available to substantiate that any hard coke was taken out from Nilopher Building on 17.11.1980 as no gate pass was issued. The defendants claim that prima facie complicity of the plaintiff, 'K' and 'A' was established in the investigation conducted by the CBI and therefore after consultation with CVC and Ministry of Mines, explanations of the concerned officers and the staff were called. On receipt of explanations charge sheets were issued to the plaintiff and 'K' under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
3.7 Charge sheet against plaintiff was issued on 02.03.1987. The departmental enquiry was completed in 1990. The report of the departmental enquiry officer was considered in detail by GSI and also the Ministry of Mines in consultation with CVC and UPSC and finally the plaintiff was exonerated on 24.10.1991.
3.8 Defendants claim that there was no vindictiveness in issuance of charge sheet against the plaintiff. It is also averred that the name of plaintiff was indeed considered for promotion and his name was included in the zone of consideration for filing up vacancies where his name was figuring at serial No.32. But since his integrity certificate CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 14 of 44 h.l.
15was not furnished, as he was charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, therefore, the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee in respect of the plaintiff was kept in sealed cover. It is also claimed by the defendants that at the stage of enquiry the plaintiff made representation against the appointment of enquiry officer which was examined by the appropriate authority as per rules but was rejected. Similarly the request of plaintiff for constitution of a Board of Enquiry was not accepted because under the CCS (CCA) Rules, as there was no such provision. It is also claimed that registration of case against the plaintiff by CBI was not on the basis of statement of 'A' but it was only after investigation by the CBI and only when sufficient material was found against the plaintiff. Defendants denied that the plaintiff was exonerated from the departmental enquiry after review application was filed by him in 1991.
4. The defendants No.4, 5 and 16 i.e. the CBI Officials also submitted their separate written statement claiming that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. They claim that the present suit having being filed after one year from the date on which cause of action accrued to the plaintiff is barred by the limitation Act, 1963 under Article 74, Schedule 1. It is claimed that cause of action in favour of the plaintiff, if at all arose on 24.10.1991, when departmental proceedings against him was dropped by the President of India.
CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 15 of 44 h.l.
164.1 CBI Officials claim that the present suit for damages have been filed against them for the acts done by them in ordinary discharge of their duties. After investigation, the CBI instead of charge sheeting the plaintiff recommended initiation of departmental proceedings against him as in its opinion that would have sufficed. These defendants also claim that this court at Delhi has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as no part of cause of action accrued within the jurisdiction of this Court. These defendants claim that FIR was registered when shortage of coke was detected after the surprise check and there was no ulterior motive on the part of these defendants to maliciously proceed against the plaintiff or to make him a scape goat. Surprise check was conducted on 26.12.1980 and RC No.3/81 was registered on 02.02.1981. Thereafter investigation was taken up. These officials claimed that CBI had a right to conduct surprise check at any place where it suspected commission of offence.
4.2 The proceedings against the plaintiff were finalized vide report dated 31.08.1981 of the concerned SP Report and the report of Central Vigilance Commission dated 26.03.1982. In which the department of plaintiff was recommended initiation of departmental action for minor penalty against the plaintiff. CBI denies that it took 11 years to complete the proceedings or that the plaintiff is in any manner entitled for damages. CBI claims that in its report it opined that departmental proceedings for minor penalty against the plaintiff would suffice and from the side of CBI its case was closed on 31.08.1981, when recommendation was made to the department of the plaintiff for minor CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 16 of 44 h.l.
17penalty. Whatever evidence was collected against the plaintiff, during investigation by CBI, the same was subjected to an impartial objective assessment by the CBI and on finding insufficient cause of penal liability, the case was recommended for departmental action on 31.08.1981.
4.3 It is also claimed that it was the plaintiff who failed to appear during hearings of the enquiry and it was the plaintiff who delayed the disposal of enquiry and therefore he cannot claim advantage of his own wrong. These defendants instead claim that in fact the plaintiff delayed the enquiry to win over the enquiry officer in which ultimately he succeeded. CBI officials admit that statement of plaintiff was not recorded during investigation by them and that he was not joined during recording of statement of other witnesses. It is claimed that since the presence of an accused is not required at the time of collection of evidence, therefore he was not joined. It is also claimed that CBI sought explanation from the plaintiff during investigation but the plaintiff never came forward. It is claimed that whenever the investigating officer was called by the enquiry officer, he made himself available before the enquiry officer, except when he was not available due to some reasons to present himself before the enquiry officer.
5. The defendants' No. 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 17 adopted the written statement of the defendant No.1, 2 and 3 on 18.04.2001. It would also be relevant to mention here that prior to that date, on 26.08.1997 the right of defendant No. 6 to defendant No.15 and the defendant No.17 to file the written statement was closed, but thereafter some of these defendants adopted the written statement of CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 17 of 44 h.l.
18defendant No.1 to 3 on 18.04.2001, as mentioned above.
6. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants reiterating the averments of the plaint and denying the claim made in the written statement. The plaintiff claimed that suit is not barred by limitation and that this court has jurisdiction since part of enquiry was conducted within the jurisdiction of this court. He claims that the President of India, on whose behalf disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff is based at Delhi, as also the Employer Ministry of Mines, Government of India, is based at Delhi and that the enquiry was closed at Delhi, therefore this court has jurisdiction. We need not mention other averments of the replication of plaintiff being unnecessarily repetitive and being unnecessarily prolix.
7. On 11.12.2001 following 10 issues were framed in the suit:
1. Whether the defendants by writing the letter of 22nd June, 1987/1st July, 1987 have maliciously defamed the plaintiff and whether it affected the reputation, prestige and interest of the plaintiff?
2. Whether false and fabricated criminal charges leveled against the plaintiff? If so its effect?
3. Whether the Central Bureau of Investigation and other defendants have not investigated all the transactions, facts and circumstances of the case deliberately so as to make the plaintiff as a scape-goat?
4. Whether plaintiff underwent harassment, humiliation, mental agony as a result of his implication? If so its effect?
5. Whether any prima facie case was drawn against the plaintiff in CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 18 of 44 h.l.19
the investigation conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation? If so its effect?
6. Whether defendant No.6 acted maliciously and malafidely and issued charge-sheet to the plaintiff without any probable and sufficient cause?
7. What was the role of the Central Bureau of Investigation vis-a-
vis the plaintiff?
8. What was the role of the plaintiff vis-a-vis its responsibility of procuring the coke from Abdul Rehman and Company, Srinagar?
9. Whether plaintiff was prosecuted illegally and without sufficient cause?
10. If issue No.9 is proved whether plaintiff is entitled to any compensation? If so how much?
8. The issue No.10 was amended on 01.12.2004 to the following effect.
"If issue No.1 and 9 are proved in favour of the plaintiff, whether plaintiff is entitled to any compensation? If so to what amount?"
9. In support of his case plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. On the other hand the defendants No.1, 2 and 3 examined DW-1 Sh. K. P Gautam. It would be relevant to mention here that on 14.07.2009, it was clarified by my ld. Predecessor that examination of DW-1 was only on behalf of defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 and not on behalf of any other defendants. Thereafter the plaintiff again stepped into the witness box in his evidence in rebuttal on 14.12.2009, in which he tendered his affidavit dated 29.04.2005.
CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 19 of 44 h.l.
2010. The rest of the defendants besides the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 did not contest the suit and it is only defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 who were appearing in the suit and contested the suit.
11. I have perused written submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the contesting defendants.
12. Issue wise findings are as follows:
13. Issue No.2 and 8 can be taken up together, being interconnected.
These two issues are as follows:
Issue no. 2 Whether false and fabricated criminal charges leveled against the plaintiff? If so its effect?
Issue no. 8 What was the role of the plaintiff vis-a-vis its responsibility of procuring the coke from Abdul Rehman and Company, Srinagar?
13.1 It is not in dispute that there was no criminal prosecution launched against the plaintiff in any criminal court of law. Only an FIR was registered by the CBI and investigation was taken up. After conclusion of investigation CBI observed that minor penalty under departmental proceedings would suffice and there is no requirement of launching any criminal prosecution against the plaintiff. Thus, no charge sheet was filed against him and no criminal prosecution was launched against him in any criminal court of law. Perusal of Ex.DW-1/1 which is a report of the Superintendent of Police, CBI, dated 31.08.1981, CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 20 of 44 h.l.21
would reveal that after the FIR was registered by the CBI, the entire transaction of shortage of Coke was investigated by the CBI. Material was collected by the CBI, which indicated that the shortage of Coke was at the time when the Coke was received in the office of GSI. Thus, CBI recommended minor penalty in regular departmental action against the plaintiff as well as 'K'. Regular departmental enquiry for major penalty was recommended against 'A'. Thus, there was no criminal prosecution launched in any criminal court of law against the plaintiff.
13.2 Turning to the question whether the criminal charges leveled against the plaintiff were false and fabricated or not, it is an admitted fact of the plaintiff that he was instructed to supervise purchase of coke by his superior officer. It is also an admitted case that the plaintiff was working as Sr. geologist at the relevant time in GSI Srinagar. It is also an admitted case of the plaintiff that on the Bill given by the seller M/s Abdul Rehman & co, he issued a certificate regarding receipt of entire quantity of 260 quintels of Hard Coke.
13.3 Perusal of reply to the charge sheet submitted by the plaintiff, which is proved on record by the plaintiff himself as Ex.P10-A, would reveal that in reply to Article II and III of the charge sheet, he admitted that the certificate was given by him. Though he claimed that the certificate given by him was not a stock taking certificate, but the factum of issuance of certificate by him stands admitted. The claim of plaintiff is that he did not furnish any false certificate. On page 5 of the reply to Article III, the plaintiff specifically admits that the certificate given by him on the reverse of the Bill related to discharge of his duty CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 21 of 44 h.l.
22as a Supervisor of Procurement only and it was not meant for the purposes of payment of Bill. It shows that the fact of appending a certificate on the Bill regarding receipt of entire quantity of 260 quintals of Hard Coke is admitted by the plaintiff. The case of department against the plaintiff was also that the plaintiff was instructed to Supervise the purchase of 150 quintals only and he was never orally asked to purchase 260 quintals. The case of department is also that actually the quantity received was much less and complete quantity of 260 quintals was not received, thereby causing loss to the department. Admittedly when the charge sheet was served upon the plaintiff, a copy of bill dated 17.11.1980, issued by M/s Abdul Rehman and Company, purportedly on which certificate given by the plaintiff existed, was supplied to him. Even otherwise also in the petition filed by the plaintiff before CAT which is proved as Ex.P-22, also the plaintiff has admitted existence of certificate issued by him on the bill in question.
13.4 It may be mentioned here that Ex.DW-1/1 is a photocopy of a document, but mode of proof of this document was never challenged by the plaintiff at the time when this document was exhibited in evidence. He is now precluded from challenging this document on the ground of mode of proof.
13.5 Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Another, (2003) 8 SCC 752, regarding Stage at which the objection as to admissibility can be raised. Held as follows:
CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 22 of 44 h.l.23
"such objections can be classified as,
(i). objection that the document sought to be proved is itself inadmissible,and
(ii) Objection directed not against the admissibility of the document but against the mode of proof thereof on the ground of irregularity or insufficiency.
Objection under the category (i) can be raised even after the document has been marked as exhibit or even in appeal on revision. But the objection under category (ii) can be raised when the evidence is tendered but not after the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit".
13.6 Though the plaintiff has claimed that a false complaint was lodged against him by 'A' in connivance with CBI, besides making this bare and wild allegation, nothing has come on record to show that the CBI took up investigation on the complaint of 'A' or in connivance with 'A'. Instead the stand of CBI is that they conducted surprise checking in which the quantity of coke was found short in the office of GSI and therefore, they took up the investigation. Upon completion of investigation CBI indeed found material against the present plaintiff which is clear from Ex.DW-1/1. In Ex.DW-1/1, it is mentioned that the plaintiff gave a certificate to the following effect:
"certified received quantity that is 260qtls. in two parts i.e. 60qtls. on 15.11.1980 and 200qtls. ....."
13.7 After analyzing evidence collected by it , the CBI came to the CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 23 of 44 h.l.
24conclusion that the only possibility was receipt of lesser quantity of Hard Coke by 'A' and the plaintiff, and there was nothing to show that Hard Coke was removed from office building after it was received. Thus, it was the certificate of the plaintiff itself which was found to be not genuine regarding receipt of entire quantity and therefore, observations against the plaintiff was given for initiation of departmental enquiry. The plaintiff did not examine any other witness to prove that the supplier gave/supplied entire quantity of 260qtls in two parts as was claimed in his certificate. The plaintiff was a senior officer when he went to acquire Coke along with 'A'. It was the responsibility of plaintiff to certify the correct quantity supplied and received in the office. Thus, it is not proved by the plaintiff that complete quantity was supplied and received in the office of GSI. It is also not proved that any part of it was removed from the office subsequent to its receipt in the office. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the registration of FIR by CBI, was leveling false and fabricating criminal charges against the plaintiff. Similarly the charge sheet issued to the plaintiff by his department cannot be said to be baseless or based on false and fabricated material.
13.8 The plaintiff argues that the Ex.P-1 and P-2 shows that entire quantity of Coke was received in the office. This Ex.P-1 was prepared on the basis of the certificate given by the plaintiff himself, which as per the case of defendants was falsely given by the plaintiff. Therefore, mere fact that in Ex.P-1, which is an extract of copy of stock register, the complete quantity is mentioned, does not prove that there was no involvement of the plaintiff and that he even could not have been charge sheeted for departmental enquiry.
CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 24 of 44 h.l.
2513.9 Subsequent release of payment through cheque, which was not an account payee cheque, also does not go to show that the certificate issued by the plaintiff was correct. Subsequent issuance/release of payment was a result of the certificate appended by the plaintiff on the bill. Merely because the cheque in favour of seller was not crossed as an account payee cheque, does not help the case of plaintiff as it may be an administrative irregularity against the concerned official who issued and signed the cheque, but it does not prove that entire quantity of supply was received in the office or that the certificate issued by the plaintiff was correct.
13.10 Plaintiff has placed reliance upon two letters Ex.P-13 and Ex.P-23, purportedly written by Sh. D.B. Ghosh on the point that these letters show innocence of the plaintiff. First of all these letters are nothing more than an opinion of Sh.D.B. Ghosh and therefore, they do not help the case of the plaintiff. Secondly these letters pertain to long after the conclusion of investigation report by the CBI. One letter Ex.P-13 is dated 12.11.1991 whereas second letter Ex.P-23 is dated 03.04.1993, whereas the final report of CBI was submitted on 31.08.1991. The plaintiff could have asked Sh. D.B. Ghosh to participate in the investigation and give true picture, if according to the plaintiff the investigation done does not reveal true picture. Accordingly both these letters does not help the plaintiff. Similarly merely the statement of DB. Ghosh was not recorded by the fact finding committee or the investigating officer does not go to prove that entire fact finding enquiry was vitiated or the investigation was vitiated or the departmental enquiry was malicious and vitiated.
CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 25 of 44 h.l.
2613.11 Accordingly, Issue No.8 is decided to the effect that the plaintiff was responsible to supervise procuring of Coke from Abdul Rehman and Company and he issued a certificate on the back side of the Bill certifying that entire quantity of coke was received in two installments.
13.12 Accordingly issue No.2 and 8 are decided against the plaintiff.
14. Issues No.3, 5 and 7 are taken up together being interconnected.
These issues read as follows:
Issue no. 3 Whether the Central Bureau of Investigation and other defendants have not investigated all the transactions, facts and circumstances of the case deliberately so as to make the plaintiff as a scape-goat?
Issue no. 5 Whether any prima facie case was drawn against the plaintiff in the investigation conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation? If so its effect?
Issue no. 7 What was the role of the Central Bureau of Investigation vis-a-vis the plaintiff?
14.1 As discussed above perusal of Ex.DW-1/1 would reveal that CBI took up this investigation on the basis of a source information from which it was learnt that there was some shortage in the stock of hard Coke in the department of GSI and accordingly a surprise check was conducted and thereafter FIR was registered. The matter was investigated by the CBI, and its details are mentioned in report Ex.DW-1/1. Upon conclusion of investigation the plaintiff and other two CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 26 of 44 h.l.27
officials 'A' & 'K' were found to be at fault and responsible and accordingly departmental action was recommended against them. Perusal of Ex.DW-1/1 would reveal that the matter was indeed properly investigated by CBI.
14.2 The plaintiff made allegations against 'A' claiming that he was the person responsible for maintaining stock and he was the person responsible for theft and misappropriation of hard coke. Except making bare allegations against 'A', no proof was adduced in the present suit to show that it was 'A' who committed theft or misappropriation or that it was 'A' alone who was responsible for it. In the report Ex.DW-1/1, CBI found 'A' also involved and responsible and therefore, recommended major penalty against him. Had the allegations of the plaintiff been true about conspiracy between CBI officials and 'A', CBI officials would not have recommended graver action against 'A', whereas departmental action for minor penalty was recommended against plaintiff and 'K'. The CBI report Ex.DW-1/1 holds the plaintiff as well as 'K' & 'A' responsible. Regarding allegations by the plaintiff against 'A' that he took out some good quintals of coke out of one building to be transported to other building, nothing was found against 'A'.
14.3 Regarding other officials of GSI, the plaintiff has made wild and unsubstantiated allegations. All of them have been joined as defendants in the present suit. There is nothing on record to suggest that the CBI and other defendants did not investigate all the transactions or facts and circumstances or that the plaintiff was deliberately made a scape goat. Instead others who have been found CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 27 of 44 h.l.
28responsible were also recommended by the CBI to be charge sheeted. The issue no. 3 is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
14.4 In report Ex.DW-1/1, there is prima facie enough circumstances shown against the plaintiff. In page 4 of this report, on the basis of consumption and on the basis of fact that no coke was removed from the office premises by anybody, the CBI prima facie came to a conclusion that it was a case of receipt of lesser quantity. It was the plaintiff who gave a certificate on the bill of supplier as to receipt of entire quantity. Thus, prima facie a case was indeed drawn by the CBI, in its investigation against the plaintiff. Once the CBI found the plaintiff prima facie responsible for the shortage of stock, the CBI was well within its right to recommend departmental action against the plaintiff. Issue No.5 is accordingly answered against the plaintiff.
14.5 Plaintiff has alleged that CBI was playing at the hands of A who was a noted trade unionist and in conspiracy CBI took up the investigation and did not allow investigation by the local police to implicate the plaintiff. These are only wild allegations of the plaintiff and these allegations have remained absolutely unsubstantiated. Plaintiff did not prove any complaint given by 'A' to the CBI on which CBI took up investigation. Instead CBI took up investigation on the basis of source information. Had CBI been in conspiracy with 'A', entire blame could have been put by the CBI in its report against the plaintiff and thereby exonerating 'A'. Rather even 'A' was found to be responsible in the investigation of CBI. Departmental action qua major penalty was recommended against 'A', whereas departmental action for minor penalty was recommended against the plaintiff and 'K'. This fact itself CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 28 of 44 h.l.
29indicates that there was no complicity between CBI and 'A'. In any case, if the plaintiff alleges conspiracy between CBI and 'A', it was for the plaintiff to have proved those circumstances, showing any such complicity. Merely making bare allegations would not suffice.
14.6 So far as the plea of plaintiff that local police was not allowed to conduct investigation is concerned, it is revealed from Ex.P-6 and P-7, that complaint to local police was made only on 05.01.1981, whereas much prior to that day CBI had already taken up the investigation after conducting surprise check in the office of GSI at Sri Nagar. Once an investigating agency was already investigating a matter, legally even otherwise, separate investigation qua the same offence could not have been conducted.
14.7 Regarding non recording of statement of plaintiff by the CBI, Ex.P-8 reveals that his statement was not required by the investigating officer at that stage. It is not mandatory for an investigating officer to record statement of a suspect. Evidence has to be collected independently in an investigation and if the evidence is sufficient to show complicity, law does not prevent giving final report even without recording version of the suspect.
14.8 It would be relevant to mention here that the plaintiff has made allegations against almost everybody in his department as well as against the investigating officer of CBI, the Superintendent of CBI as well as the director of CBI. It would also be relevant to mention that the plaintiff went to the extent of making allegations even against the Central Administrative Tribunal, as finds mention in his plaint. Such CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 29 of 44 h.l.
30wild and unsubstantiated allegations against one and all do not suffice, when a plaintiff claims damages for malicious prosecution. Accordingly, issue No.7 is decided against the plaintiff to the effect that CBI investigated its case properly and without biasness.
15. Issue No. 6 is as follows:
Whether defendant No.6 acted maliciously and malafidely and issued charge-sheet to the plaintiff without any probable and sufficient cause?
15.1 Needless to say onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff, as it is the plaintiff who claimed that the defendant No.6 Sh. D.P. Dhaundial, issued charge sheet for regular departmental enquiry upon the plaintiff, maliciously and without any probable and sufficient cause. 15.2 As mentioned above, again besides making bare allegations that Sh.D.P. Dhaundial was inimical towards him, no other evidence has been put forth by the plaintiff which could have sufficiently indicated to this court that the plaintiff was served charge sheet by defendant No.6, maliciously. Once the CBI observed in its final report that the plaintiff was responsible for issuance of false certificate about receipt of entire quantity of coke, and the department was asked to proceed against the plaintiff, defendant No.6 was perfectly justified in ordering departmental enquiry. Let it be mentioned that before ordering regular departmental enquiry, a fact finding enquiry was also ordered by the department. The fact finding was ordered vide Ex.P-4, which is an office order constituting the fact finding committee of three officers of GSI. The plaintiff has impleaded all three committee members in the CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 30 of 44 h.l.31
present suit as defendants. Even otherwise law is well settled that the kind of clinching evidence required for proving a criminal trial against an accused for penal offences, is not required in a departmental enquiry. In a departmental enquiry a department can proceed against an employee, if the employee is found/suspected to be involved in any action against CCS Rules. When the CBI prima facie found the plaintiff responsible in the matter, the department committed no wrong in conducting regular departmental enquiry. A departmental enquiry is conducted to find out whether or not an employee is guilty. The employee gets every opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry. If it is proved in the departmental enquiry that an employee is not involved, the employee is exonerated. But merely because a departmental enquiry is ordered or conducted does not mean that the department commits a mistake, if the enquiry is not proved. Before issuance of charge sheet to the plaintiff an explanation was called from him through Ex.P-11, by Sh. S.K. Mukherjee, Director General of GSI. Even Director General of GSI has been impleaded as a defendant No.2 in the suit. Not only the Director General has been impleaded as a defendant in the suit, even Sh.S.K. Mukherjee, who issued the memorandum Ex.P-11, was impleaded by the plaintiff as a defendant in the suit, thereby the plaintiff has made allegations against one and all in the matter.
15.3 In the present case, defendant No.6, prima facie had enough material in hand against the plaintiff to charge sheet him and therefore, issue No.6 is decided against the plaintiff.
16. Issue No.4 and 9 can be taken up together.
CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 31 of 44 h.l.
32Issue no. 4 Whether plaintiff underwent harassment, humiliation, mental agony as a result of his implication? If so its effect?
Issue no. 9 Whether plaintiff was prosecuted illegally and without sufficient cause?
16.1 It is not in dispute in the present suit that there was no criminal prosecution launched against the plaintiff in any criminal court of law. Only an FIR was registered by the CBI and investigation was taken up. After conclusion of investigation CBI observed that only minor penalty in departmental proceedings would suffice and there is no requirement of launching any criminal prosecution against the plaintiff. Thus, no charge sheet was filed against him and no criminal prosecution was launched against him in any criminal court of law. Perusal of Ex.DW-1/1 which is a report of the Superintendent of Police, CBI dated 31.08.1981 would reveal that after the FIR was registered by the CBI the entire transaction of shortage of Coke was investigated by the CBI. Material was collected by the CBI, which indicated that the shortage of Coke was at the time when the Coke was received into the office of GSI. Thus, there was no criminal prosecution launched in any criminal court of law against the plaintiff.
16.2 As mentioned above neither was the CBI at fault in registering the FIR and in investigating the matter, nor was the department at fault in conducting departmental enquiry against the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot claim that he underwent harassment, humiliation and mental agony. Merely because the department subsequently exonerated the plaintiff, it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff that entire action of CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 32 of 44 h.l.
33the department was malicious.
16.3 The word malicious means, Ill will; intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm. Express or actual malice is, ill will or spite towards the plaintiff or any indirect or improper motive in the defendant's mind, which is the sole or dominant motive for the action complained of. Malice means in law wrongful intention. It includes any intent which the law deems wrongful, and which therefore serves as a ground of liability. Any act done with such an intent is, malicious.
16.4 Malice in the legal sense implies the absence of all elements of justification, excuse or recognised mitigation, and, the presence of either an actual intent to cause the particular harm, or the wanton and willful doing of an act with awareness of a plain and strong likelihood that such harm may result. Therefore, malice is, where one deliberately injures another in an unlawful manner. It signifies an intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse or an action determined by an improper motive. "MALICE", in common acceptation, means, ill will against a person; but in its legal sense, it means, a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse.
16.5 The principles to be borne in mind in the case of actions for malicious prosecutions are these:--Malice is not merely the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but it must be established that the defendant was actuated by malus animus, that is to say, by spite or ill will or any indirect or improper motive. But if the defendant had reasonable or probable cause of launching the criminal prosecution no amount of CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 33 of 44 h.l.
34malice will make him liable for damages. Reasonable and probable cause must be such as would operate on the mind of a reasonable man. 'Malice' and 'want of reasonable and probable cause,' have reference to the state of the defendant's mind at the date of the initiation of criminal proceedings and the onus rests on the plaintiff to prove them.
16.6 Thus for a remedy against malicious prosecution it is essential to prove that no probable cause existed for instituting the prosecution or suit complained of. As a general rule of law, any person is entitled to lay an information as to any criminal offence which he has reasonable and probable cause to believe has been committed, with a view to ensuring the arrest, trial, and punishment of the offender. When it comes to the knowledge of anybody that a crime has been committed a duty is casted on that person as a citizen of the country to state to the authorities what he knows respecting the commission of the crime, and if he states what he honestly believes, he cannot be subjected to an action of damages merely because it turns out that the person as to whom he has given the information is after all not guilty of the crime. In such cases to establish liability the pursuer must show that the informant acted from malice i.e. not in discharge of his public duty but from an illegitimate motive, and must also prove that the statements were made or the information given without any reasonable grounds of belief, or were given without probable cause. The performance of a duty imposed by law, such as the institution of a prosecution does not constitute 'Malice'.
16.7 Mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 34 of 44 h.l.
35indication of ill will. There should be cogent evidence to show it. In the present case a bare perusal of the averments and deposition of plaintiff would show that they are extremely vague and lacking in details. In the present case, when it is observed that there was enough material available with the department to charge sheet the plaintiff, the claim of plaintiff that he was charge sheeted maliciously does not survive. It cannot be said that there was no probable or reasonable cause existing for instituting the departmental action complained of. It is another matter that the department could not prove it. It is also another matter that the CBI in its wisdom did not charge sheet either the plaintiff or 'K' or 'A'. But the facts as mentioned above prima facie do not show that they were not enough to charge sheet the plaintiff and the facts do not show any malicious departmental action against the plaintiff.
16.8 Plaintiff has laid much stress on the point that he was not issued passport and permission to issue passport was declined. This fact does not by itself entitle the plaintiff to claim that he was deliberately harassed. If no objection was not granted, pending departmental proceedings against the plaintiff, no malicious action is revealed from the said fact.
16.9 Plaintiff also claims that despite orders of CAT dated 15.07.1988, he was not considered for promotion and his adhoc promotion was not given to him. Perusal of the said order of Hon'ble CAT, which is proved as Ex.P-12, would reveal that vide this order expeditious disposal of his enquiry was directed and qua other prayer of promotion it was mentioned that there were comprehensive CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 35 of 44 h.l.
36instructions and rules of Govt. of India, in respect of consideration of cases of employees whose conduct is under investigation for promotion. It was also observed that there are comprehensive rules available on the subject for consideration of such employees for adhoc promotion, if the disciplinary case is not finalize within two years. Accordingly Hon'ble CAT observed that case of plaintiff be also considered for Adhoc promotion, if he is eligible in terms of the Govt. of India's instructions and if he comes within the parameters of instructions issued by the Govt. of India. Admittedly the case of the plaintiff was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee but the recommendations were kept in sealed envelope since departmental enquiry was pending against the plaintiff. Admittedly the plaintiff was given all his dues including promotion after he was exonerated in the departmental enquiry. Thus, the issue No.4 and 9 also are decided against the plaintiff.
17. Issue No.1 is as follows;
Whether the defendants by writing the letter of 22nd June, 1987/1st July, 1987 have maliciously defamed the plaintiff and whether it affected the reputation, prestige and interest of the plaintiff?
17.1 The claim of defamation by the plaintiff is based on a letter dated 22.06.1987, written by 'A' to the Deputy Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal and a copy of which was sent to the plaintiff, the Central Deputy Director General, GSI, Nothern Region, Lukhnow, the Director General GSI Calcutta, the Minister of Steel and Mines and the President of National Confederation of Central Government Employees and Workers, New Delhi. In this letter 'A' has mentioned as CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 36 of 44 h.l.
37follows on page 2 of the letter as follows:
"The partial attitude of deponent saying me a south Indian clearly shows high regional bias. No doubt that I am an Indian. I am not anti-national or pre-Pakistani lie the deponent. It can be proved form office records of his activities of anti-national in passing messages to his brother-in-law in Dhaka. East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) when Sh. Amir Ahmad was posted in West Bengal due to this activities and he was immediately transferred from Calcutta to Lukhnow. Also he was transferred from Sala Project in Jammu ( J&K) being a sensitive and border area."
"I have not gone to any court in my life time but it is the habit of Shri Amir Ahmad frequently go to court to face several court cases. In Lukhnow and Uttar Pradesh at least in 16 cases, he has faced. The records will speak about the adamancy of Sh. Amir Ahmad. The National flag of Pakistan was hoisted in the year 1965 and 1971 at his Fatehganj residence Lukhnow."
17.2 When a copy of this letter addressed to the Deputy Registrar, CAT and others reached the Director In charge of GSI, it was simply forwarded by the Director In charge namely Sh. P.C. Mathur, to the Senior Deputy Director General Nothern Region for appropriate action. A copy of this letter was also sent to the plaintiff, the Deputy Registrar of CAT as well as to 'A'.
17.3 The mere allegation of hoisting of the flag of Pakistan at the residence of plaintiff by him, does not in any way amount to defamation. The grudge of plaintiff is that he was termed as anti-national and pro- Pakistani by 'A'. Admittedly this letter or contents of this letter were not CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 37 of 44 h.l.
38publically published in newspaper or through any other mode. This communication was sent by 'A' in response to the petition of the plaintiff before CAT. It was primarily addressed to the Deputy Registrar of CAT and when it reached the Director in charge of the plaintiff, he simply forwarded it to the Deputy Registrar of CAT as also his senior Deputy Director General. This letter or its contents does not smack of malice and it does not amount to defamation of the plaintiff.
17.4 Even otherwise the plaintiff has not examined any witness, including his relatives, friends or his office colleagues to prove that because of contents of this letter, the reputation of the plaintiff was in any manner diminished in the eyes of such known persons of the plaintiff. Accordingly, even the issue no.1 has to fail against the plaintiff.
18. Turning to issue No.10. As mentioned above, this issue No.10 was amended on 11.12.2001. The amended issue No.10 read as follows:
"If issue No.1 and 9 are proved in favour of the plaintiff, whether plaintiff is entitled to any compensation? If so to what amount?"
18.1 Not only the issue no.1 and issue no.9 have failed against the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to any compensation, it may be mentioned here that there is an issue of limitation also involved in the present suit.
18.2 But before that it may be mentioned that the plaintiff has relied upon following judgments.
CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 38 of 44 h.l.
39a) Parshuram Babaram Vs. Times Global, Special Civil Suit No. 1984/2008, decided on 26.04.2011 by the court of 6 th Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division Pune, passed by Smt. V.K. Deshmukh;
b) Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Parshuram Babaram Sawant, Civil Application No.3994 of 2011, decided on 28.09.2011 by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay Civil Appellate Jurisdiction;
c) S. Nambinarayanan Sangeetha Vs. State of Kerala, (2012) 271 KLR 410;
d) Dr. Mehmood Nayyar Azam Vs. State of Chattisgarh, Appeal No.5703 of 2010, decided on 03.08.2012, by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;
e) Union of India Vs. Satish Chandra Sharma, 150 SCC (1980) 2 SCC;
f) State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335;
g) P.T. Ankleshria Vs. H.C. Vasishtha, AIR 1980 Bom 24;
h) Pt. Gaya Prasad Tiwari Vs. Sardar Bhagat Singh (1908) 5 ALL LJ 665;
i) Dasrathi Mandal Vs. Hari Das, AIR 1959 Cal. 293;
j) Kapoor Chand Rikhi Ram Mahajan Vs. Hakim Jagdish Chand Shri Pat Rai and Anr., AIR 1974 Punjab and Haryana 215;
k) A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak (1984) 2 SCC 500;
l) Maulud Ahmed Vs. State of U.P. (1964) 2 Cr. LJ 71 SC;
m) Ghulam Rasul Khan Vs. Secretary of state, AIR 1925 PC 170;
n) Ghulam Bhai Vs. Collector AIR 1970 Goa 59;
o) Arjun Vs. Virender Nath, AIR 1971 ALL 29;
p) Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors., (1993) 4 SCC 727;
q) Dr. M.N. Dasanna Vs. State of U.P. (1973) 2 SCC 378;
r) Avgtar Singh Vs. I.G. Police, Punjab 1968 SLR 131 (SC);
CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 39 of 44 h.l.
40s) S. Partap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72;
t) K. Chandrasekhar Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 223; u) M. H. Devendrappa Vs. Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation, (1998) 3 SCC 732;
v) Gupta Vs. State, AIR 1954 PH 4;
w) Kashi Nath Das Vs. Isphani Ltd. 1955 LAC 795;
x) Romeshwar Rao Vs. State ILR 1956 Cut. 29;
y) Rayan Kutti (1903) 26 Mad 640, 643;
z) P.V. Mahadevan Vs. MD T.N. Housing Board (2005) 6 SCC 636; aa)State of U.P. Vs. Bhagwat Kishore Joshe, AIR 1964 SC 221; bb)P. Sirajuddine Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1971 SC 520; cc) State of Kerala Vs. Samuel, AIR 1961 Ker 99 (FB);
dd)Radha Bai Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry, (1995) 4 SCC 141; ee)Salem Advocate Bar Association, TN (II) V. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344;
ff) Ganga Din Vs. Krishna Dutt, AIR 1972 Allahabad 420;
18.3 None of these judgments applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case and all of them are distinguishable on facts and issue of law involved in those cases, from those in the present case.
18.4 In the present case the plaintiff has joined two different causes of action in the present suit. On the one hand the plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff suffered malicious prosecution for 11 years i.e. up to the time when he was exonerated in the departmental inquiry and on the other hand plaintiff claims compensation on account of defamation by 'A' through his letter dated 22.06.1987, which was forwarded by other defendant. The cause of action pertaining to defamation by 'A' was a CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 40 of 44 h.l.
41separate and distinct cause of action. It could not have been clubbed by the plaintiff in the present suit with the alleged cause of action of alleged malicious prosecution.
18.5 Under the Limitation Act 1963, under Article 75 & 76, for compensation for 'libel' and for 'slander', respectively, the limitation provided is one year. The period of limitation begins to run when the 'libel' is published or when the words are spoken or if the words were not actionable in themselves, when the special damage complained of results.
18.6 In the present case, qua the alleged defamation under the letter dated 22.06.1987, admittedly this letter was received by the plaintiff in July, 1987. It is so mentioned by him in its reply Ex.P-17, wherein he records the fact that he received a copy of this letter in July, 1987. Thus, the period for filing a suit for compensation against defamation stood expired sometime in July, 1987. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff in November, 1993. It was listed before the court for the first time on 12.11.1993. Thus, this suit is hopelessly barred by limitation for seeking compensation against defamation.
18.7 For the second cause of action, for seeking compensation against malicious prosecution, again the suit is barred by limitation. Under Article 74 of the limitation Act 1963, such suits can be instituted within one year from the date when the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is otherwise terminated. In the present case admittedly no criminal prosecution took place against the plaintiff. In the departmental enquiry the plaintiff was admittedly exonerated on 24.10.1991. Thus, the CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 41 of 44 h.l.
42present suit seeking compensation against malicious prosecution is also barred by limitation. The plaintiff has not prayed any exemption from limitation in the plaint. The plaintiff did not pray in the suit claiming any such exemption or extension of limitation. It is not mentioned by the plaintiff whether he is seeking exemption for a period of limitation, for the period during which he had perused application for compensation before Guwahati Bench of Hon'ble CAT. It is not mentioned by him anywhere as to on which date he preferred that application so that the period could have been calculated.
18.8 In the case of M/s. Alliance Paints and Varnish Works Pvt. Ltd vs. Hari Kishan Gupta (Deceased) Through Lrs . RFA No. 54/1997, Decided on February 10, 2010, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as follows;
"15. .....................when exemption from limitation is prayed for, it is essential for the plaintiff to very specifically plead such an exemption in the plaint. As a matter of fact, under Order VII Rule 6 CPC, it is obligatory, as a matter of pleading, to show the ground on which the exemption from limitation is claimed. It was so held in Sha Manmall Misrimall v. K. Radhakrishnan AIR 1972 Mad 108 by the Madras High Court and by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Roshan Lal Kuthiala (supra). In the instant case, this has not been done by the respondent-plaintiff at all, in that the respondent in the plaint does not seek to rely upon any acknowledgment for extending the period of limitation for institution of the suit. Thus, clearly, in my view, it would not be open to the CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 42 of 44 h.l.43
respondent to rely on an exemption not specifically pleaded in the plaint."
18.9 Even otherwise under Section 19 of CPC, suits for compensation for wrongs to persons can be filed where the wrong has been done or where the defendant or all the defendants reside, if the wrong was not done at the same place. Under Section 20 (v) of CPC, where there are more than one defendants, a suit can be instituted where any of the defendants, at the time of commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gains, provided that in such case either the leave of the court is given or the defendants who do not reside or carry on business or personally work for gain as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution. In the present case, the plaintiff has impleaded as many as 17 defendants. Some of the defendants are based at Delhi, some at Jammu, Calcutta, Lukhnow and Patna. Neither the leave of the court was obtained to institute the suit at Delhi nor other defendants acquiesced. Also it appears that the plaintiff is indulging into forum hunting as first he filed an application in Hon'ble CAT at Guwahati, then he filed the present suit. Prior to it, he had filed petitions before different benches of CAT at different places. On the point of jurisdiction of this court, the plaintiff claimed that part of enquiry was conducted within the jurisdiction of this court, which remained unrebutted and when no specific issue to this effect was framed, no adverse order is passed against the plaintiff as to the point of jurisdiction.
CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 43 of 44 h.l.
4418.10 Suffice it to say that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation also and that the plaintiff has failed in proving issues No.1 and 9 in his favour, and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
No orders as to costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Delivered & announced in the open Court on 14th Day of January, 2013. (DIG VINAY SINGH) Addl. District Judge, Central-04, Tis Hazari Courts.
Delhi CS NO.80/08 Amir Ahmed Vs. UOI dated 14.01.2013 Page No. 44 of 44 h.l.