Delhi District Court
Cs No. 56431/16 vs Smt. Sushma Verma on 12 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. TWINKLE WADHWA: LD. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE03:PATIALA HOUSE COURT:NEW DELHI DISTRICT
CS No. 56431/16
Shri Vir Bahadur
S/o Late Shri Ramji Dass
Resident of 2249, Hudson Lines,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi110009. .....Plaintiff
Versus
1.Smt. Sushma Verma, Ex. Manager (G) Khukhrian Apartment, Plot No. 30/1, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi110085.
2. Smt. Kamla Devi, Ex. Manager (G) R/o Quarter No.201, PG Point, Near GPO, New Delhi.
3. Ms. Veena Viz, Ex. Manager (G) 102 C, Deep Enclave, Pocket D, Ashok Vihar, Phase 3,, Rohini, Delhi110052.
4. Ms. Ravinder Kohli, Manager (G) R/o WZ 39, Block I, Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
5. Smt. Ram Rati, Manager (G) R/o House No.1477, Sector 6, Bahadurgarh, Haryana124507.
6. Smt. Sunita, Ex. Manager (G) CS No. 56431/16 Page 1 of 11 H. No. 100 Village Bandwari, Khaderpur, Gurgaon122001, Haryana.
7. Shri Kunal Singh General Manager (PE) FCI Hqrs., 1620, Barakhamba Lane New Delhi110001.
8. Shri Siraj Hussen then Executive Director (transportation) now Chairman CUM MD FCI Hqrs., 1620, Barakhamba Lane New Delhi110001.
9. Shri Rajat Sharma then AGM (RPI) Now DGM (Establishment) FCI Hqrs., 1620, Barakhamba Lane New Delhi11000.
10. Shri Anjali Anand Srivastava Executive Director (P) FCI Hqrs., 1620, Barakhamba Lane New Delhi11000. ....Defendants Date of Institution : 19.03.2011 Date of Final Arguments : 22.02.2018 Date of Decision : 12.03.2018 JUDGMENT The Case
1. Present is a suit filed by Vir Bahadur against his colleagues who were working with him in Food Corporation of India. The present is a suit for recovery of Rs.10 lacs as compensation for defamation, harassment and humiliation.
CS No. 56431/16 Page 2 of 11Appearance
2. I have heard arguments of ld. counsel for the plaintiff Shri Sagar Ld. Counsel for FCI Shri Devraj Singh, ld. counsel for defendant nos. 2 to 6 Shri D D Tripathi and ld. counsel for defendant nos. 7 to 10 Shri Karunesh Tandon and I have perused the case file.
Plaintiff's Case
3. It is the case of plaintiff Vir Bahadur that he was working as Manager (G) with Food Corporation of India from November, 1999 to 23.06.2006. He was posted in Movement Division. He retired on 28.02.2010. He has rendered 37 years of service at Food Corporation of India. It is further the case of plaintiff that in the year 2006, he was given the powers of administrative work regarding punctuality of the employees. It is further the case of plaintiff that defendant nos. 1 to 6 all six ladies were habitual in coming late to office and used to leave the office before closing hours without permission. Memos were issued to them from time to time.
4. It is further the case of plaintiff that on 23.03.2006, plaintiff made proposal for taking action against defendant nos. 1 to 6 regarding their coming late and leaving early. Consequently, office memos dated 19.05.2006 were served on defendant nos. 1 to 6 and at other employees of Food Corporation of India by General manager at the proposal being prepared by plaintiff. The details of the said memos are filed on record which are duly exhibited.
5. It is further the case of plaintiff that after receiving the said memos, defendant nos. 1 to 6 started nursing a grudge against him and in collusion with CS No. 56431/16 Page 3 of 11 each other, made a false complaint against plaintiff dated 18.05.2006 addressed to defendant no.8 i.e. ChairmancumManaging Director which was received in the office on 23.05.2006. The said was a complaint alleging misbehavior, harassment, unparliamentary language being used by plaintiff against defendant nos. 1 to 6.
6. It is further the case of plaintiff that defendant nos. 1 to 6 instigated another employee of Food Corporation of India namely Kul Bahadur who was Secretary of employee Union, to lodge a false complaint against the plaintiff. Hence said Kul Bahadur also lodged a false complaint against the plaintiff on 19.05.2006 which was received in the office on 22.05.2006.
7. Consequently on the complaint of defendant nos. 1 to 6, a complaint committee was constituted. The said committee vide order dated 06.06.2006 gave opinion that it is not a case of sexual harassment. However, the committee maliciously held that ugly remarks and foul language has been used by plaintiff against defendant nos. 1 to 6. Vide order dated 09.06.2006, committee recommended that plaintiff should be warned and disciplinary action be initiated. Further committee recommended transfer of plaintiff and four women out of defendant nos. 1 to 6 out of the said department. Plaintiff was transferred but none of the defendants were ever transferred from the said department.
8. Further plaintiff was served with the chargesheet on the recommendations of the committee. It is further the case of plaintiff that defendant nos. 7 to 10 who are higher officials in the Food Corporation of India have depicted a prejudicial attitude towards the plaintiff. They never transferred any of the defendant nos. 1 CS No. 56431/16 Page 4 of 11 to 6. Vide order dated 06.11.2007, the then disciplinary authority warned the plaintiff to be careful in future even though no case of sexual harassment was made out against the plaintiff.
9. Aggrieved by the order of disciplinary authority, plaintiff preferred an appeal dated 24.03.2008. However, plaintiff was informed vide letter dated 03.08.2009 that warning is not a penalty as per the provisions of Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1971 and hence consideration of appeal does not arise.
10. It is the case of plaintiff that defendants in connivance with each other have defamed the plaintiff amongst the staff members, colleagues, officers, friends who read the action taken against the plaintiff at the instance of defendant nos. 1 to 6.
11. Plaintiff served a legal notice dated 01.11.2010 on the defendants thereby claiming compensation of Rs.10 lacs on account of defamation, harassment etc. within the period of 30 days from receipt of legal notice. Legal notice along with proof is filed on record duly exhibited. Hence, the present suit is filed. Defendants' case
12. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of defendant nos. 1 to 10. Defendant nos. 1 to 6 have admitted to have made a complaint against plaintiff. The disciplinary proceedings before the relevant authorities are also not denied by the defendants. It is further the case of defendants that as per the disciplinary proceedings, he was found to be guilty of using foul language/unparliamentary language and was warned. Hence it cannot be said that complaint made by defendant nos. 1 to 6 was false and frivolous. It is further the case of defendants that on 19.05.2006, another employee of Food Corporation of India namely Kul CS No. 56431/16 Page 5 of 11 Bahadur has also made a complaint against misbehavior against the plaintiff. The issuing of memos and the consequent replies there on have not been denied by the defendants. However, it is the case of defendants that only because there was some indiscipline, that does not give permission to the plaintiff to use unparliamentary language against any person. Constitution of the committee and the consequent proceedings against the plaintiff are not denied and rather admitted by the defendants as a matter of record.
13. Upon completion of pleadings, issues were identified on 14.09.2011 ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for damages on account of defamation? If so, to what extent?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest thereon?
3. Relief.
14. To prove her case, plaintiff examined himself as PW1, Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma as PW2, Shri Shiv Lal as PW3, Shri Ramesh Kumar Sharma as PW4, Shri Manbir Singh as PW5 and Shri Manbir Singh as PW6 and exhibited the following documents : S. No. No. of Exhibits Details of documents
1. Ex.PW1/1 Copy of Inter Office Memo
2. Ex.PW1/2 Copy of note sheet
3. Ex.PW1/3 Complaint dated 18.05.2006
4. Ex.PW1/4 Copy of order dated 22.05.2008
5. Ex.PW1/5 Copy of charge sheet CS No. 56431/16 Page 6 of 11
6. Ex.PW1/ 7 Letter dated 03.08.2009
7. Ex.PW1/8 Legal notice
8. Ex.PW1/9(colly) Postal receipts
9. Ex.PW1/10(colly) Postal receipts
10. Ex.PW1/11 Reply dated 25.11.2010
11. Ex.PW3/1(colly) Office record
12. Ex.PW3/2 Minutes of complaint
13. Ex.PW4/1(colly) Record pertaining to memos and attendance of defendant nos.1 to 6.
14. Ex.PW4/2 True copy of the memo dated 19.05.2006
15. On the contrary, defendants examined Ms. Ravinder Kohli as DW1 and and DW2 Shri Ram Hitkari, Ms. Veena Vig as D3W1/A, Ms. Ram Rati as D5/W1A and Ms. Kamla Devi as D3W1 and exhibited the following documents S. No. No. of Exhibits Details of documents
1. Ex.DW1/1 to 9 Documents
2. Ex.D7W1/D Memorandum
3. Ex.D3W1A/P1 Movement Division Memo dated 19.05.2006
4. Ex.D3W1A/P2 Letter dated 29.05.2006
5. Ex.D5W1/1 Letter dated 29.05.2006
6. Ex.D2W1/Mark A Letter dated 19.05.2006
7. Ex.DW2/A Copy of circular dated 17.06.1997
8. Ex.DW2/B Copy of committee report
9. Ex.DW2/C Copy of relevant rules
10. Ex.DW2/D Copy of charge sheet CS No. 56431/16 Page 7 of 11
16. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. Reasons for Decision Issue No.1Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for damages on account of defamation? If so, to what extent?
17. The first question to be decided is whether the complaint made by defendant nos. 1 to 6 against the plaintiff was false or it was filed in collusion with other defendants and secondly if it was so, whether it has led to defamation of the plaintiff. Thirdly, whether plaintiff is entitled to any damages.
16. Firstly, as per the complaint made by defendant no.1 to 6, Ex.D2W1/A/complaint is admitted by both the parties. Further there is another complaint which was brought along with other documents from the Food Corporation of India along with record of the proceedings of the complaint committee. In the said complaint dated 18.05.2006 there are allegations of using unparliamentary language, ugly comments and abusive language which is a matter of record. Further minutes of complaint committee which was constituted are on record. As per the minutes of complaint committee dated 09.06.2006, it is observed that "It is observed that this is not really a case of sexual harassment except to the extent that it is felt that the foul language or ugly remarks have been used by Mr. Vir Bahadur, Manager (Movt.) to the ladies. However, this is also intolerable and no male employee should use foul language/double meaning words to any lady. Another aspect is that the ladies grievance was flared up because of punctuality being demanded. The Committee recommends Shri Vir Bahadur Manager (Movt.) should be CS No. 56431/16 Page 8 of 11 warned/disciplinary action taken for using foul language with the ladies. Shri Vir Bahadur, Manager (Movt.) may be shifted and transferred at once out of the building. Likewise, the ladies atleast any four out of Six ladies may also be transferred from Movt. Division and suitable incumbent be posted so that the Division's work should not hamper."
18. Further the order of the disciplinary authority dated 06.11.2007 is also on record where findings of the committee were accepted and written warning was directed to be issued to him. The said observations are as follows "I have gone through the contents of the chargesheet, the inquiry report and other related record of the case in a careful manner and find that the IO has not proved the charges against CO as circumstances evidence had gone in favour of the CO and no complaints were made by the lady staff before 18.05.2006 to Sr. Officers either in writing as well as orally. This fact has further been confirmed by the Sr. Officers who appeared before the complaint committee appointed for the purpose of investigation of the complaints. Though his conduct is unbecoming of an employee of Corporation yet in absence of any oral or documentary evidence the IO has not proved any charge against him except that :Eak Hath Laga Tha.I accept the findings of IO. But keeping in view the misconduct of CO, a written warning to be issued to him, will meet the ends orders of justice."
19. Further the said letter address to the plaintiff dated 03.08.2009 Ex.PW1/7 is on record wherein it was informed to him that warning is not a penalty and question of consideration of appeal does not arise.
20. In view of the above observations, it is pertinent to note that there were observations against the plaintiff regarding use of unparliamentary language in the report of complaint committee and disciplinary authority. Though no allegations of sexual harassment were there but it was observed that CS No. 56431/16 Page 9 of 11 unparliamentary language was being used by him. Consequently he was warned. Since it was not found by the said committee and disciplinary authority that there was no misbehavior on the part of plaintiff, it cannot be said that the plaintiff did nothing wrongful with the defendants. Even use of unparliamentary language would give rise to the cause of action to the defendants to file the complaint against the plaintiff. But according to the plaintiff the said is a false complaint and his appeal was not considered and warning was not held to be a penalty. Hence, it was for plaintiff to prove that the said complaint was false and frivolous.
21. However, in the present case also plaintiff has failed to prove that the allegations levied against him by defendant nos. 1 to 6 were false allegations. Witness D3W1 Veena Vij, D5D1 Ramrati D2 W1 are three of the six ladies who have come to the witness box to depose against the plaintiff. In their affidavit of evidence they have maintained the stand taken by them in their complaint against the plaintiff. The burden was on plaintiff to prove that the complaint were false but he has failed to discharge that burden. There is no specific crossexamination of these three ladies/witnesses regarding the complaint of misbehavior. There is a general suggestion to them which they have denied thereby stating that it is wrong to state that the said complaint was a false complaint. Plaintiff has not done detailed crossexamination of these ladies regarding the allegations of misbehavior. In order to discharge the burden on the plaintiff, it was for him to ask the specific questions regarding misbehavior, what was the misbehavior, when it was done, how it was done by the plaintiff and on which occasions. But there is no crossexamination of any of these three witnesses regarding the same. Only CS No. 56431/16 Page 10 of 11 by giving bare suggestion, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has discharged the burden to prove that the said complaint were false. Especially there is an observation of complaint committee regarding the act being done by the plaintiff in the departmental proceedings.
22. Moreover, plaintiff has not brought witnesses from his department or family and friends in order to prove that his image was lowered in their eyes.
23. In view of the above, plaintiff has failed to prove that the complaint made by the complainants was false in the absence of any specific crossexamination on the same. Further in view also of the observations of the disciplinary committee and complaint committee benefit of doubt goes to the defendants. Hence, plaintiff has failed to prove any act of defamation against him by the defendants. As plaintiff has failed to prove any act of defamation he is not entitled to any damages. Consequently, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Issue No.2Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest thereon?
24. Since plaintiff is not able to prove any act of defamation and hence no damages are payable, hence he is not entitled to any interest thereon. Issue No.3Relief
25. No relief is made out. Hence, the present suit is dismissed.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (TWINKLE WADHWA)
On 12th March, 2018 ADJ3/New Delhi District
12.03.2018
CS No. 56431/16 Page 11 of 11