Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Same Author while dealing with Scope of Employment in paragraph 20.9 held that "it is necessary that the acts done by the servant within the scope of his employment constitute an actionable wrong in themselves".

39. Thus, a master is vicariously liable for the tort committed by the servant acting in the course of employment. The justification for rule is public policy and for the wrong committed by the presiding officer who presided the NDPS Court/respondent No.2 during the relevant period in not issuing super-session/ release warrant right in time and respondent No.4, both are jointly and severally responsible for the alleged detention of the petitioners and action for damages/compensation can be filed either against both of them or against the employer only and as such, the writ petition filed claiming compensation against the employer/respondent No.4 State Government is maintainable and respondent No.4 is liable for compensation for the wrong done by its presiding officer of the NDPS Court/respondent No.2. It was not necessary for the petitioners to implead the said judicial officer in this writ petition personally. This question is answered accordingly.