Delhi District Court
Ranjan Sharma vs Lakkhan Lal on 31 August, 2013
Ranjan Sharma v. Lakkhan Lal
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHREYA ARORA MEHTA: CIVIL JUDGE1,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of
Suit No. 286/11
Case ID No. 02406C0107212011
Ranjan Sharma
TGT, English,
Government Boys' Senior Secondary School,
Chirag Delhi (Saomi Nagar)
...............Plaintiff
Versus
Lakkhan Lal
HOS/Vice Principal
Government Boys' Senior Secondary School,
Chirag Delhi (Saomi Nagar)
New Delhi110017.
.............Defendant
Date of Institution : 05.05.2011
Date of reserving the Judgment : 06.08.2013
Date of pronouncement : 31.08.2013
Decision : Dismissed
SUIT FOR DAMAGES OF RS.1,00,000/ (RUPEES ONE LAKH ONLY)
ON ACCOUNT OF DEFAMATION, HARASSMENT AND MENTAL
TORTURE.
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking decree of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Only) towards damages on account of defamation, harassment and mental torture.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF
2. The plaintiff is a teacher in Government Boys Senior Secondary Suit No.286/11 Page 1 of 14 Ranjan Sharma v. Lakkhan Lal School, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi, where the defendant is the VicePrincipal and Head of the School. It is averred that defendant in order to tarnish the image of the plaintiff had been fabricating false, frivolous and baseless allegations against the plaintiff and on several occasions when the defendant allegations were found to be false and incorrect the defendant has also apologized for the same.
3. It is further averred that defendant issued a letter dated 06.05.2010, leveling false and frivolous allegations against the plaintiff for which the plaintiff specifically replied. The defendant made the allegations that the plaintiff was assigned class VIA as a class teacher and he did not complete the register. The said allegations are apparently false as no office order of assignment of class VIA has been acknowledged and received by the plaintiff. It is further averred that office order dated 03.05.2010 did not say that the said class was allocated to the plaintiff. But later on the defendant himself put the class numbers on sheet for signatures. It was also made clear that since the plaintiff was made the Examination Incharge, the plaintiff was not assigned the work of class teacher for any class. However, later on the defendant with mala fide intention and in order to harass the plaintiff committed forgery and concocted false story that the plaintiff was made class teacher of VIA.
4. It is further averred that the plaintiff never left the school without information and permission and allegations in this regard are false and the allegations made in the memorandum dated 31.05.2010 are false, frivolous and baseless. It is stated that the plaintiff was shocked to know that the defendant was putting Suit No.286/11 Page 2 of 14 Ranjan Sharma v. Lakkhan Lal allegations that the plaintiff has already been suspended.
5. The defendant in his memorandum dated 31.05.2010 asked the plaintiff vide office order No. 15 dated 07.05.2010, No. 17 dated 19.05.2010, No. 18 dated 20.05.2010 and No. 19 dated 21.05.2010 to submit all examination records in duplicate whereas in his letter dated 18.06.2010, sent to the E.O. Zone 23, the defendant stated that in spite of repeated memo/order, the plaintiff had refused to hand over the examination charge. Both these statements are contradictory and prove that the defendant is deliberately doing such acts to harass the plaintiff. It is further averred that the examinations were conducted in the school and all the records were prepared in time and were available to the students and parents. The certificates and mark sheets were issued in time. There has been no complaint of the students and authority against the plaintiff in this regard. The plaintiff had made several complaint aganst the defendant with regard to irregularities and illegalities committed in holding the examination. The plaintiff issued two legal notices dated 26.06.2010 and on 21.07.2010 to the defendant for which defendant never replied. Hence, the present suit.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT
6. The defendant has averred that the plaintiff by habit misbehaves in the school and his conduct violates CCS Conduct Rules. The plaintiff has been suspended twice due to his acts of omissions. It is denied that in order to tarnish the image of the plaintiff, the defendant has fabricated false, frivolous and baseless allegations against the plaintiff. It is averred that the plaintiff has concocted Suit No.286/11 Page 3 of 14 Ranjan Sharma v. Lakkhan Lal a false story and fabricated some selfserving evidence to mislead this court. The plaintiff by filing the present suit proposes to take advantage of his own wrongs as firstly, he misbehaves with the defendant and thereafter files the present case to put pressure on the defendant to withdraw the complaints and make favourable statements in the inquiry pending against the plaintiff. No apology was ever tendered as alleged by the plaintiff and the accusations against the plaintiff have already been proved in the preliminary inquiry.
7. It is further averred that the plaintiff has a long and continuous history of misbehaving and there are many complaints pending against him, some of which were made even before the plaintiff came in contact with the defendant. It is further averred that being the then Vice Principal of the school, the defendant owing to the misconduct of the plaintiff made a complaint against the plaintiff. The plaintiff had absolutely no explanation / justification due to which the defendant was forced to forward the complaints to the higher officials. On this occasion the plaintiff came to the defendant and apologized for his misconduct and touching the feet of the defendant, the plaintiff promised to mend his ways and assured that he shall not repeat such acts of misconduct in future. This happened in the presence of Sh. J. L. Chauhan, Sh. Anwar Saleem and Sh. R. B. Sharma. The plaintiff pleaded that in case the complaints against him are investigated, the plaintiff will be in serious trouble. The plaintiff requested and pleaded with the defendant for help with the total assurance and promise to be a better person. The defendant taking a humanitarian approach to the situation and believing the verbal assurances of the plaintiff to Suit No.286/11 Page 4 of 14 Ranjan Sharma v. Lakkhan Lal be correct thus wrote a letter to the Inquiry Officer that there is no complaint against the plaintiff.
8. It is wrong and denied that the letter dated 06.05.2010 contains false and frivolous allegations against the plaintiff. It is further averred that the plaintiff was made the class teacher vide office order no. 12 dated 03.05.2010 by the defendant and the first period of VI A was allotted to the plaintiff which he refused to take and vide order dated 06.05.2010, the plaintiff was reminded / instructed that the plaintiff had neither completed the class register of class VI A nor taken attendance of the class.
9. It is further averred that the defendant is duty bound to report
(a) the misconduct of any one associated with the school (b) all acts which are detriment to the interests of the school (c) all acts which hampers the smooth working of the school. The copies of preliminary inquiry reports, memos served on the plaintiff, showcause notices served on the plaintiff, EO's orders and written complaints from the students detailing the behaviour of the plaintiff are annexed with the written statement.
10.It is further averred that the necessary action as per rules has been initiated against the plaintiff from time to time and the plaintiff has been suspended twice. It is stated that plaintiff was directed to submit the examination record / documents through various orders issued on different dates but the plaintiff refused to comply with these orders in gross disrespect to the institution causing inconvenience to the students, the school and the higher officers of the department.
Suit No.286/11 Page 5 of 14Ranjan Sharma v. Lakkhan Lal
11.It is further averred that the Education Officer, Zone 23 has vide order no. 857861 dated 22.06.2010 and Deputy Dir. Of Education (South) vide order no. 1072 dated 19.08.2010 had directed to the plaintiff to handover the charge of the examination when the plaintiff refused to comply with the order issued by the defendant in this regard.
12.The legal notices have been admitted by the defendant. However, it is stated that the contents of the notices were totally false, frivolous and vexatious to the plaintiff's own knowledge and was an attempt on the part of the plaintiff to coerce the defendant to withdraw the complaints pending against the plaintiff. The defendant has sent his reply to the higher authority to the legal notices sent by the plaintiff and the copies of these replies are annexed with the written statement.
13.It is further averred that even as per the allegations leveled in the plaint, there is no loss caused and no amount can be claimed by the plaintiff. It is further averred that the defendant performed the duty assigned to him as HOS and brought acts of indiscipline of staff to the notice of the concerned officers / higher authorities for necessary actions as per CCS rules. As a matter of fact, the defendant would have failed in his duty and responsibility towards the students, teachers and higher officers in case the defendant would have not brought the acts of indiscipline and misdeeds at the hands of the plaintiff to his higher officers. There are numerous complaints against the plaintiff for which inquiry was set up and as per the inquiry report, the plaintiff has been prima facie held to be guilty of accusations against him. It is also stated that the inquiry against Suit No.286/11 Page 6 of 14 Ranjan Sharma v. Lakkhan Lal the plaintiff is still pending. The defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
REPLICATION
14.The plaintiff has filed replication and denied the averments made in the written statement and simultaneously reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint.
ISSUES
15. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 12.04.2012:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ as prayed for in the suit? OPP
2. Relief.
16.In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1. PW1 deposed on the lines of the plaint. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and deposed on the lines of the written statement.
17.After the defence evidence was closed, the matter was fixed for final arguments. Despite various opportunities, the plaintiff failed to put forth his arguments. Accordingly, I heard the counsel for the defendant and fixed the matter for judgment with liberty to the plaintiff to file written submissions. No written submissions have been filed till date.
18.I have considered the submissions of the defendant and have carefully perused the record. My issuewise findings are as Suit No.286/11 Page 7 of 14 Ranjan Sharma v. Lakkhan Lal under:
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS ISSUE NO.1
19.The question to be answered is as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/ from the defendant on account of defamation, harassment and mental torture.
20.PW1 has deposed on the lines of the plaint. The basic grievance of the plaintiff is in respect of two imputations made by the defendant against the plaintiff i.e. letter dated 06.05.2010 Ex.PW1/7 and memorandum dated 31.05.2010 Ex.PW1/11.
21.Firstly, I would be dealing with the letter dated 06.05.2010, Ex.PW1/7 which is a letter issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. PW1 has deposed that the defendant herein has made allegation that the plaintiff was assigned class VIA as class teacher and he did not complete the register. It is further deposed that the said allegations are apparently false because there was no office order of assignment of class VIA has been acknowledged and received by the plaintiff and office order dated 03.05.2010 Ex.PW1/8 did not say that the class was allocated to the plaintiff but later on the defendant put the class number on the sheet for signature. In the cross examination, PW1 admitted his signatures on Ex.PW1/8 i.e. office order dated 03.05.2010 however stating that the class and section were written thereafter by the defendant.
Suit No.286/11 Page 8 of 14Ranjan Sharma v. Lakkhan Lal
22.Without getting into the aspect whether the letter dated 06.05.2010 Ex.PW1/7 was false and defamatory, I would like to deal with the other essential of the liability of defamation as to the words must be published. Defamation is not attracted by sending a letter to the plaintiff. It is defamation only if more than two persons are involved. In other words, there must be communication to at least a third person. The letter dated 06.05.2010 Ex.PW1/7 is addressed to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has brought nothing on record to establish that the same was published or circulated. Thus, the same cannot attract the liability of defamation and fasten the defendant with the liability for damages.
23.The second imputation qua which the plaintiff has alleged defamation is the memorandum dated 31.05.2010 Ex.PW1/11.
24.The memorandum dated 31.05.2010 Ex.PW1/11 reads as under:
GOVT. BOYS SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL CHIRAG DELHI (SOAMI NAGAR) SCHOOL, I.D.1923012 Ref. No.158 Dated 31.05.10 Whereas Mr. Ranjan Sharma TGT (Eng.) was directed vide o/o No. 15 dated 07/.05.2010 & o/o No.17 dated 19/05/2010 & o/o No.18 dated 20/05/2010 & o/o No. 19 dated 21/052010 to submit all examination record under the list of documents being submitted in duplicate to the undersigned latest by 21/05/2010.
Where as all urgent work such as submission of result report of X & XII class for year 2010 to E.O. Zone 23, issue of provisional certificate and mark sheet to the students is held up due to non availability of examination record. Neither you are doing all the examination work yourself nor allowing the undersigned to get it done by some other teacher.
Where as Mr. Ranjan Sharma TGT (Eng.) was directed to complete the class register of VI A and get it signed by the undersigned. The Suit No.286/11 Page 9 of 14 Ranjan Sharma v. Lakkhan Lal same was not done till date.
Whereas Mr. Ranjan Sharma has already been suspended on the basis of violating the C.C.S. (Conduct) rule and enquiry is still pending. Where as Mr. Ranjan Sharm uses abusive and unparliamentary language while interacting with the H.O.S. Where as Mr. Ranjan Sharma is not teaching his classes regularly and the H.O.S. has received a written complaint from the students and the same was duly verified by H. O.S. Till date you have not obeyed the orders and there is no sign of improvement in your behaviour.
Keeping in view of all the above facts, Mr. Ranjan Sharma is once again directed to obey the orders immediately in the interest of student otherwise matter will be again forwarded to higher authorities for violating the C.C. S. (conduct) Rule.
Copy to:
1. Mr. Ranjan Sharma TGT (Eng.)
2. E.O. Zone 23
3. D.D.E. (South)
4. Personal file of the official. V. Principal Govt. Boys Sr. Sec. School Chirag Delhi (Soami Nagar) New Delhi110017
25.It is settled that the communication which was written and processed in the course of official duties, is covered under qualified privileges under the law of liability for defamation. The qualified privilege is available when the statement is made in discharge of duty or protection of an interest.
26.The scope of the plea of qualified privilege which the defendant might take can be illustrated by way of following five instances:
a) Firstly, it might be pleaded by the defendant that the publication was made by him in discharge of a duty ought by him. The duty ought to by him might be public or private. It might be legal, moral or social. It might even be conventional, and may relate to the ordinary practice observed in the conduct of his affairs. (b) Secondly, the defendant might also set up the Suit No.286/11 Page 10 of 14 Ranjan Sharma v. Lakkhan Lal defence of qualified privilege on the ground that there existed between him and the party to whom the publication was made a common interest in the subject matter in question, and that this interest being of a reciprocal character, the publication in question was made in discharge of the duty generated by the subsistence of such interest. (c) Thirdly, the doctrine also would cover a confidential relationship between the persons and societies as a result of which one party empowered or entitled to tender advice or information to the another party respecting the matter for which both are concerned. The communication might not be in discharge of positive duty, but be merely in the nature of a duty imposed as a result of a private understanding between the parties and the situation created thereby. (d) Fourthly, where such a relationship exits, any inquiry made by one party from another might be an additional ground involving the other party in a kind of moral obligation to convey the information to the party that seeks the said information. (e) Fifthly, even apart from the aforesaid mentioned consideration the publication can be made to the other party for the protection of the legitimate interest of the person or persons who make the publication or even for the protection of the interest of another person in which both the parties are concerned.
27. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff was a teacher of the school wherein the defendant was then the vice principal when memorandum dated 31.05.2010 was issued. The defendant being the vice principal of the school is duty bound to report and issue memorandum against the officials in case of misbehavior / mismanagement. Further, the defendant is duty bound to report the same to the higher authorities and is Suit No.286/11 Page 11 of 14 Ranjan Sharma v. Lakkhan Lal accordingly protected by the defence of qualified privilege under the law of defamation. Thus, the action on the part of the defendant was part of his normal duties which he was supposed to perform.
28.In the case of the qualified privilege, no suit will lie upon the statement unless the plaintiff proves express malice. The factor which is to be assessed is whether the defendant maliciously published the memorandum dated 31.05.2010 Ex.PW1/11. For this the onus is on the plaintiff and the prima facie defence of qualified privilege is lost, if the plaintiff shows that the defendant was actuated by "actual" or " express" malice.
29.It is necessary for the plaintiff to show that the defendant was actuated by spite or ill will. However, the plaintiff has not been able to prove sufficient facts to raise the issue of malice, which would be required to overcome the qualified privilege.
30.If an employee commits misconduct in the discharge of his duties, his employer / disciplinary authority has right to proceed against him by way of departmental action. That is in fact happened in the instant case. The defendant has established that an inquiry was held as to the conduct of the plaintiff and he was also charge sheeted. DW1 has exhibited the copy of order of suspension in lieu of contemplation of disciplinary proceedings passed by Deputy Director of Education (District South) on 17.09.2010 Ex.DW1/A and memorandum dated 18.02.2011 along with statement of articles of charge framed against the plaintiff as Ex..DW1/B. Suit No.286/11 Page 12 of 14 Ranjan Sharma v. Lakkhan Lal
31. From Ex. DW1/A and Ex.DW1/B it is clear that an inquiry was initiated against the plaintiff and charges were framed as to the violation of C.C.S. Conduct Rules,. 1964 for disobeying the order of the HOS, further under Rule 3 of the C.C.S. Conduct Rules, 1964 for not taking the classes of VI, IX and X and not making class register of class VIA as well as teacher diary. Further, for the complaint made by the father of the student regarding the corporal punishment to his son. Further, for not handing over the examination charge and also locking two rooms of the school building without permission. Further, for complaint made by HOS that the plaintiff has committed theft of teacher's attendance register for the month of June and July 2010 along with other important documents.
32. In view of the inquiry being held and the plaintiff being charge sheeted, the memorandum dated 06.05.2010 Ex.PW1/7 cannot be held to be defamatory. More so when the plaintiff has failed to show any malice on the part of the defendant. It is pertinent to mention that during the course of final arguments, the counsel for the defendant brought to the notice of the court the order dated 08.03.2013 of the Directorate of Education (Vigilance Branch), Government of NCT of Delhi vide which the penalty of compulsory retirement has been imposed on the plaintiff with immediate effect which establishes that the charges framed in the inquiry against the plaintiff were proved. The plaintiff has not appeared for the final arguments to address anything to the contrary before this court. Therefore, when the allegations made in the communication in question stand proved in the departmental inquiry on the basis of which the plaintiff is imposed punishment, such allegations are found to Suit No.286/11 Page 13 of 14 Ranjan Sharma v. Lakkhan Lal be truthful and thus cannot be termed as defamatory.
33. Hence, the plaintiff has not been able to establish the liability of defamation on the defendant for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Only). In lieu of the same, no harassment and mental torture can also be inferred.
34. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Only) on account of defamation, harassment and mental torture. This issue is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
RELIEF
35. In these facts and circumstances, the plaintiff has failed to establish that he is entitled to any damages on account of defamation, harassment and mental torture. The suit of the plaintiff is therefore dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to the record room thereafter.
Announced in the open (SHREYA ARORA MEHTA)
Court on 31.08.2013 CIVIL JUDGE1 (SOUTH DISTRICT)
(Judgment contains 14 pages.) SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit No.286/11 Page 14 of 14