Delhi District Court
Mukesh Kumar vs National Commission For Scheduled ... on 19 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI :
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE04: PATIALA HOUSE COURTS :
NEW DELHI.
In the matter of :
RCA DJ No. 48 of 2017
Mukesh Kumar
s/o late Sh. Phool Singh
r/o Flat no. 19, Ground Floor,
33, Raj Niwas Marg,
Civil Lines, Delhi.
.....Appellant.
Vs.
1. National Commission for Scheduled Castes
through its Secretary
5th Floor, Lok Nayank Bhawan, Khan Market
New Delhi.
........Respondent no.1
2. All India Confederation of SC/ST Organixations
Throught its Chairman
9/752, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi.
.........Respondent no.2.
Date of Institution : 20.06.2017
Date of arguments : 28.01.2020
Date of Judgment : 19.02.2020
RCA DJ No. 48 of 2017
Mukesh Kumar Vs.National Commission for Scheduled Castes and anr. Page 1 of 10
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal challenges the Judgment dated 09.06.2017 passed by Ld. Civil Judge02, PHC, ND in suit no. 160 of 2014 whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for claiming Damages of Rs. 2,95,000/ for the injury caused by neglect of Respondents towards investigation against Steel Authority of India Limited (hereinafter as 'SAIL') on appellant's complaints had stood dismissed.
2. To put briefly, the facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that Appellant was an employee of SAIL a Govt. of India Enterprises and joined services of SAIL on 10.06.1991 as a Management Trainee (E0 Grade) vide appointment letter dated 10.05.1991. Subsequently, Appellant got promoted to various posts i.e. as Sales Executive (E1 Grade) on 10.06.1992, Sr. Sales Executive (E2 Grade) w.e.f. 31.12.1995, Divisional Manager (Sales) w.e.f. 30.06.1999 and Sales Manager (E4 Grade) w.e.f. 30.06.2004. The Appellant's case was that the SAIL was obligated /required to implement the Constitutional Policy for benefit of SCs/STs employees in matters of promotions within Group 'A' posts/ Executive positions in SAIL. The Appellant had made several representations for over a decade to SAIL, however, the SAIL continuously flouted the norms. Aggrieved by this attitude of Employer, the Appellant was forced to tender his resignation vide letter dated 10.06.2008. Instead, SAIL terminated services of Appellant on the ground of "voluntary abandonment of service" vide order dated 28.01.2009, dismissing all grounds mentioned RCA DJ No. 48 of 2017 Mukesh Kumar Vs.National Commission for Scheduled Castes and anr. Page 2 of 10 in his resignation. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority of SAIL reviewed its decision and accepted the resignation of the Appellant after Appellant filed writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
3. The case of Appellant was that he wanted an independent investigation of his complaints against the SAIL Management to safeguard his 'civil rights' in matters of public employment and for safeguarding his dignity, life and liberty against all kinds of illwill/hatred on caste lines. The Appellant had also, during its course of employment in SAIL, made /given several complaints to Respondent no.1 complaining about the ill treatment meted out to him in SAIL. The Respondent no.1 handled the same by way of three files, Respondent no. 1 NCSC File No. M 41/M&S/25/SC/95SSWIV against plaintiff's complaint dated 18.11.1995 on delay and noncompliance of reservation policy in promotion from Grade E1 to E2 which was due on 30.06.1995; Respondent no. 1 NCSC File No. M1/S&M1/2004 SSWII against complaint dated 28.01.2004 in matters of flouting of reservation policy ; Respondent no. 1 NCSC File No. M2/S&M3/06 SSWII/III against complaint dated 10.01.2006 flouting of reservation policy by SAIL and harassment of appellant.
4. The Appellant stated that the Respondent no.1 had a legal obligation to investigate his complaints and to recover material evidence in light of Article 338 (5) of the Constitution of India to enable appellant to facilitate in seeking justice from the courts of law. The Respondent no.1, however, neglected/failed to discharge his duties in violation of Article 338 (5) of the Constitution of India.
RCA DJ No. 48 of 2017 Mukesh Kumar Vs.National Commission for Scheduled Castes and anr. Page 3 of 105. As per Appellant, Respondent no. 2 was a registered society and Confederation of all SC /ST organizations/Unions, established by the SC/ST employees of their respective Employers under the Govt. of India and its role was to look after the welfare of the SCs/STs in their respective Employer organizations, and in particular implementation of Constitutional Policy for SCs/STs as elaborated by Govt. of India from time to time. The Respondent no.2 failed in putting pressure on Respondent no.1 (Commission) for safeguarding /implementation of Constitutional policy of the Govt. of India interalia matters of promotion, monitoring roasters/seniority list, super session, adequate representation etc. With these assertions, the Appellant herein had filed a Suit claiming an amount of Rs.2,95,000/ as Damages with interest on commercial rates on account of injuries caused by Respondents for negligence caused in performing their duties and to investigate the appellant's complaints.
6. The trial court record shows that initially respondent no.1 and 2 had put appearance. However, respondent no.2 was proceeded exparte. The respondent no.1 filed its Written Statement wherein it stated that w.r.t to the representation made by the appellant in 2004 alleging harassment and discrimination in promotion to E4 grade w.e.f. June 2001 by SAIL, the cognizance of the same was taken by respondent no.1 and the said representation was sent to the SAIL for comments. SAIL in its reply dated 29.03.2004 specified that since the appellant did not have the requisite credit points in appraisal for the year 200103, he could not be promoted. On appellant's request, the case was closed on 29.04.2005. With respect to RCA DJ No. 48 of 2017 Mukesh Kumar Vs.National Commission for Scheduled Castes and anr. Page 4 of 10 the complaint of Appellant in the year 2006, the same was again taken up with the SAIL by respondent no.1 (Commission) and SAIL responded to the same that the allegation of discrimination and untouchability raised by the appellant was baseless. With respect to Appellant's file of year 1995 and 2004 also, the appellant was duly informed by the respondent no.1. Thereafter, several RTI applications were filed by the appellant and for disposal of the same, respondent no.1 called for a meeting to settle appellant's grievances, wherein appellant had admitted to have received all information and the matter was closed.
7. The trial record shows that after issues were framed by order dated 10.03.2010, appellant was provided an opportunity to adduce his evidence. The appellant examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as PW1/A. Sh. J.N.Prashad, Director, Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprise, Sh. Pawan Kumar, Dy. General Manager, SAIL, Sh. Jagdish Kumar Section Officer Department of Personnel and Training were also examined by the appellant. No evidence however was led by Respondent no.1.
8. The appellant argues that under Article 338 of the Constitution of India, Respondent no.1 was under the constitutional obligation to protect his as well as SC/ST community's interest, however, the matter was negligently dealt with (by the Respondent no.1) and the same was evident from the documents on record. It is argued that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the documentary evidence as well as written submissions in RCA DJ No. 48 of 2017 Mukesh Kumar Vs.National Commission for Scheduled Castes and anr. Page 5 of 10 support of the issues framed in the suit. Appellant argues that no evidence was led by the respondents and therefore, no reliance could have been placed on the stand taken by them. Appellant argues that the Respondent no.1 (commission) had completely failed in collecting evidence and completing the investigations, causing Appellant mental harassment. It is further argued that ld. trial court erroneously relied upon the documents of respondent no.1, though the same were not proved or exhibited. It is argued that the ld. trial court failed to appreciate the complaints of the appellant bringing forth facts of discrimination by wrongly concluding that the first complaint of the appellant was filed only on 21.01.2004. Appellant detailed all the grounds of challenge in para no.11 of his appeal and in support of his submissions, relied upon the following authorities :
1. Correia Vs. Canac Kitchens (2008) OJ no. 2497.
2. Hughes Vs. Lord Advocate (1963) AC 837
3. Vadodra Municipal Corporation Vs. Murjani and ors CA no.
3594 3611 of 2010 DOD 10.09.2014 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. I have gone through the entire record as well as heard the submissions of the appellant in person. I have also perused the written submissions alongwith the Judgments/caselaws relied upon. I observe that the appellant has failed to bring anything on record to sustain the appeal by showing any illegality or error in the impugned order.
10. The essential question which falls for consideration is whether there was any breach of duty on the part of respondent no.1 (Commission) which resulted in damage to the appellant and giving rise to cause of action RCA DJ No. 48 of 2017 Mukesh Kumar Vs.National Commission for Scheduled Castes and anr. Page 6 of 10 to file Suit for damages. The primary challenge to the order of Ld. Trial Court as submitted by appellant was that the ld. trial court omitted to appreciate the documentary evidence as well as record the case laws filed before it. The case put forth by the appellant is that he made several complaints and representations to Respondent no.1 in respect of service matters against the SAIL Management in the year 1995, 2004 and 2006 which remained ignored. The evidnece on record would, however, demonstrate to the contrary. There were three complaints that were made in the year 1995, 2004 and 2006 respectively to the respondent no.1 (Commission). In evidence, appellant admitted of his complaint of the year 2004 having sent by the Respondent no.1 to SAIL. He further admitted to the closure of his complaint by his own letter. In response to the question of resolution of his another complaint of the year 2006, appellant in crossexamination admitted that action was taken by the Respondent no.1 (Commission). Appellant admitted that on 21.08.2006 a meeting was called wherein the appellant alongwith other officials of SAIL and Assistant PIO had participated. Appellant admitted to similar meeting dated 27.09.2006, wherein he expressed his satisfaction regarding the information he had sought under RTI. The evidence on record shows that on 15.01.2007, another meeting was called wherein the appellant, Chairman, SAIL, Vice Chairman of Respondent no.1 (Commission) and Secretary, Ministry of Steel were present. Appellant in said meeting admitted to have been advised to take up the matters directly with the SAIL authorities. A comprehensive examination of entire record as well as evidence would suggest that evidently, Respondent no.1 (Commission) took appropriate investigations/measures as and when complaint was made RCA DJ No. 48 of 2017 Mukesh Kumar Vs.National Commission for Scheduled Castes and anr. Page 7 of 10 by the appellant. The necessary action as well as the closure of the complaint made in 2004 was done at the request of the appellant. In respect of 2006 complaint, the appellant admitted that the same was duly entertained by the Respondent no.1 (Commission). Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant's grievances were not considered.
11. The important question for decision was that whether Appellant had brought home his case against the respondent that the respondent was actuated by malice or ill will in ignoring his representations. Clearly, the Appellant failed to establish by bringing anything that the respondent acted with an ulterior motive. Appellant failed to show any iota of evidence to the effect that there was any malice or unreasonable act on part of respondent. Perusal of the plaint shows only general and vague allegations levelled against respondents. Strangely enough, Appellant did not name any person working with respondents who was allegedly ignoring his complaints and causing such mental harassment. The appellant did not initiate any criminal proceedings against respondents nor did he bring on record the status/outcome of the criminal complaint instituted by him against respondents. Moreover, the allegations of the appellant were primarily centered around alleged inactions of SAIL, but in his Suit, the appellant did not implead SAIL as one of the necessary parties. The appellant also did not challenge the order whereby his application during proceedings under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC impleading SAIL as party was dismissed on 29.01.2010. There is yet another aspect to the present matter i.e. delay in filing the suit for damages. Despite the appellant's resignation dated 10.06.2008 was accepted by SAIL after the order of RCA DJ No. 48 of 2017 Mukesh Kumar Vs.National Commission for Scheduled Castes and anr. Page 8 of 10 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 03.08.2008, appellant sat silently till 22.09.2009 and delay in institution of the civil suit has remained inexplicable.
12. Merely placing on record by the appellant of bulky documents of respondents in the form of office memorandas and circulars governing the conditions of service would not suffice. The appellant failed to substantiate as to how, in what manner and by whom there was a violation or breach of duties. The mere fact that the respondent failed in acting upon representations of appellant ipso facto would not constitute a ground for an actionable tort for damages on the ground of abuse of process. The appellant had a heavy onus to discharge in his Suit but has unable to show that how the respondent no.1 failed in his duties casted / mandated by the Constitution. Institution of a Suit by appellant was without averring a duty owed by Respondent to Appelant and brench of such duty at the hands of respondents and in the event of his failure to bring any evidence in support thereof, the findings recorded by the trial court cannot be faulted with. Ld. trial court went through the entire evidence available on record and correctly passed the order. The appellant cannot direct the manner or resolution of his complaints by respondent to his own satisfaction. There is absolutely no evidence on negligence or breach of duty ascribable to respondents.
13. Having observed thus, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order dated 09.06.2017, passed by the trial court on any of the counts forwarded by appellant. The appeal deserves dismissal.
RCA DJ No. 48 of 2017 Mukesh Kumar Vs.National Commission for Scheduled Castes and anr. Page 9 of 1014 The appeal stands dismissed with cost of Rs.30,000/ (Rs. Thirty Thousand Only).
15. File be consigned to record room after due compliance, as per rules. Trial court record be sent back with copy of the order.
Announced in open Court
On 19th February, 2020 (RAVINDER BEDI)
Additional District Judge04
Judge Code: DL 0253
PHC/New Delhi/19.02.2020
RCA DJ No. 48 of 2017
Mukesh Kumar Vs.National Commission for Scheduled Castes and anr. Page 10 of 10