09 April 1996
Supreme Court
Download

H.MUKHERJI Vs SWADESH KUMAR BHARGAVA

Bench: JEEVAN REDDY,B.P. (J)
Case number: C.A. No.-006973-006973 / 1996
Diary number: 76133 / 1994


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: DR. H. MUKHERJEE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S.K. BHARGAVA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/04/1996

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) SEN, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1760            1996 SCC  (4) 542  JT 1996 (4)   368        1996 SCALE  (3)706

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,J.      Leave granted.        The  respondent-plaintiff and the appellant-defendant were working  as Deputy  Chief Controller  of Explosives and Chief  Controller   of  Explosives   respectively   in   the Department of  Explosives,  Government  of  India  and  were stationed at  Nagpur,  the  respondent  instituted  a  suit, Special Civil  Suit No.  996 of  1992, in the court of Civil Judge, Senior  Division, Nagpur  praying for a decree in sum of Rupees  tow lakhs  against the defendant " as damages for the harassment meted out to the plaintiff and award costs of the suit  with further interest at 10 p.v.p.a. form the date of the  suit till  relisation". In the plaint, it is alleged that the  defendant deliberately  and  intentionally  passed several orders  and took  several  proceedings  against  the plaintiff,   abusing    his   official   position   as   the administrative superior  of the  plaintiff. It  is submitted that the  defendant passed those order orders and took those proceedings malafide  and actuated  by a vindictive attitude with a view to harass the plaintiff. It is also alleged that the defendant  tampered the  official record  to involve the plaintiff in  certain irregularities,  all with  a  view  to ensure that  the plaintiff  is not  appointed to the post of Chief Controller  to which  he was  selected  by  the  Union Public Service  Commission in the year 1987. The plaintiff’s case is  that the  defendant was  holding the  post of Chief Controller on  an ad  hoc basis  and that when the plaintiff was selected  by Union Public Service Commission in 1987 for appointment to  the post  of  Chief  Controller  on  regular basis, he indulged in a course of action designed to mar and tarnish the record and career of the plaintiff so that he is not appointed to the said post pursuant to his selection.        On  receiving the  notice of the suit, the defendant- appellant filed  a miscellaneous  application to dismiss the

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

suit for  want of  jurisdiction. He submitted that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit in view of the  Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [the Act] and the constitution  of   the   Central   Administrative   Tribunal thereunder  to   adjudicate  disputes  relating  to  service conditions  of   the  government   servants.  The  defendant submitted that,  if at  all such  a suit  can be entertained apply by  the Tribunal  created under  the  said  Act.  this objection was over-ruled by the learned Civil Judge. He held that the  plaintiff’s  suit  does  not  pertain  to  service matters and that the suit is filled against the defendant in his individual  capacity and  not in  his official  capacity the defendant  preferred an  appeal against  the said  order before the  Bombay High  Court [Nagpur  Bench}  The  learned Single Judge  held that  since the suit is filed for damages on account  of alleged  tortuous acts of the defendant which have caused  the  plaintiff  mantel  pain  and  injury,  the subject- matter  of  the  suit  does  not  fall  within  the jurisdiction of  the Central Administrative Tribunal created under the  Act Accordingly,  he dismissed the appeal - which order is challenged in this appeal.        The only contention urged by the defendant before the Civil Court - and which was reiterated before the High Court - is  that in view of the constitution of the administrative Tribunal under  the provisions  of the  Act, the civil court has  no  jurisdiction  to  entertain  the  suit.  We  shall, therefore, confine  ourselves to the said question alone. We shall proceed  upon the  assumption that  it is  a suit  for damages for  harassing the  plaintiff and causing him mental pain and  injury   by the  defendant who is supposed to have acted malafide  with a  vindictive attitude,  and  had  also indulged in  tempering of  official record  with a  view  to tarnish the  record. image  and career  of the plaintiff. We shall also  proceed on  the assumption  that such  a suit is maintainable in  law [Law of Torts]. The question is whether the suit  of the  pre sent  nature can be entertained by the Tribunal constituted  under the said Act and whether on that account, the jurisdiction of the High  court is ousted.      Section 14 of the Act. which sets out the jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals constituted under the Act, reads thus:      14.   Jurisdiction,    powers   and      authority    of     the     Central      Administrative Tribunal.---(1) save      as otherwise  expressly provided in      this     Act,      the      Central      Administrative    Tribunal    shall      exercise, on and from the appointed      day. all  the jurisdiction,  powers      and      authority      exercisable      immediately before  that day by all      courts (except  the Supreme  Court)      in relation to --           (a) recruitment,  and  matters           concerning requirement, to any           all service  of the Union or a           civil post  under the Union or           the   post    connected   with           defence  or   in  the  defence           services,  being,   in  either           case,  a   post  filled  by  a           civilian;           (b)   all    service   matters           concerning-           (i) a  member of any all-India

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

         Service; or           (ii)  a  person  not  being  a           member of an all-India Service           or a  person  referred  to  in           clause (c)  appointed  to  any           civil service  of the Union or           any  civil   post  under   the           Union; or           (iii) a  civilian [not being a           member of an All-India Service           or a  person  referred  to  in           clause (c)]  appointed to  any           defence  services  or  a  post           connected with defence,      and pertaining  to the  service  of      such member, person or civilian, in      connection with  the affairs of the      Union or of any with the affairs of      the Union or of any State or of any      local or other authority within the      territory of  India  or  under  the      control or  the Government of India      or of  any corporation for society]      owned   or    controlled   by   the      Government;      (c) all  service matters pertaining      to service  in connection  with the      affairs of  the Union  concerning a      person appointed  to any service or      post referred to in sub-clause (ii)      or sub-clause  (iii) of clause (b),      being a  person whose services have      been placed  by a  State Government      or any  local or other authority or      any  corporation  [or  society]  or      other body,  at the disposal of the      Central   Government    for    such      appointment.      Sub-sections  (2)   and   (3)   are      omitted as unnecessary."      Section 28 declares that:      "On and  from the  date from  which      any   jurisdiction,    powers   and      authority becomes exercisable under      this Act  by a Tribunal in relation      to    recruitment    and    matters      concerning   recruitment   to   any      Service or  post of service matters      concerning members  of any  Service      or persons appointed to any Service      or post,  no court  except (a)  the      Supreme   Court;    or   (b)    any      Industrial Tribunal,  Labour  Court      or  other   Authority   constituted      under the  Industrial Disputes Act,      1947 or any other corresponding law      for the  time being in force, shall      have or be entitled to exercise any      jurisdiction, powers  or  authority      in relation  to such recruitment or      matters concerning such recruitment      or such service matters."      The expression "service matters" occurring both in Section 14 and Section 28 is defined in clause (q) of Section 3 in the following words:

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

    "’Service matters’,  in relation to      a   person,   means   all   matters      relating, to  the conditions of his      service  in   connection  with  the      affairs of  the  Union  or  of  any      State or  of  any  Local  or  other      authority within  the territory  of      India or  under the  control of the      Government of  India,  or,  as  the      case may be, of any corporation [or      society] owned or controlled by the      Government, as respects--      (i)     remuneration     (including      allowances),  pension   and   other      retirement benefits;      (ii) tenure including confirmation,      seniority,  promotion,   reversion,      premature      retirement       and      superannuation;      (iii) leave of any kind;      (iv) disciplinary matters; or      (v) any other matter whatsoever."      The Tribunals under the Act are thus conferred with the exclusive jurisdiction,  powers  and  authority  exercisable immediately before  the appointed  day by  all Court [except the Supreme  Court] in  relation to  the matters  set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of Section 14 The question is  the present  suit does  fall under any the said clauses. We  do not  think that it does. The suit appears to be one  based on  alleged tortuous  acts  of  the  defendant committed with  a view  harass the  plaintiff and  cause him mental pain  and injury.  At  this  stage,  it  is  not  our province to  say that  whither the  allegations are  true or false. We have to take the plaint allegations as they stand. We also  assume for  the purpose  of this appeal that such a suit does  lie according  of law  since  no  contention  the contrary has  been urged  fore us  nor was  urged before the civil  court.   This  is  a  pure  action  for  damages  for deliberately harassing  the  plaintiff  by  passing  several vindictive and  malafide orders  and proceedings and also by fabricating  official   records.  Such   a  for  damages  is certainly not within the province of Section 14.      The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.