N C SINGHAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is against an order of the sub-judge, 1st class, returning his plaint fix presentation to a proper court, which would mean the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal').

(2.) The plaintiff on 19-9-86 instituted a suit against the respondent-defendant. Union of India, through the Secretary Ministry' of Health and Family Welfare, for recovery of Rs. 25,0001- because of certain tortious act of the defendant. On that account he alleged mental torture, loss of reputation- loss suffered by him on being lowered in the estimation of his colleagues and the loss suffered by him in defending certain disciplinary proceedings. The plaintiff had, in fact. assesses his damages at Rs. 1,00,000.00 but claimed only Rs 25,000.00 Plaintiff said he was an eve surgeon of renown and retired from Govemment service on 31-10-80. Re was to be paid his retirement benefits in the first week of November, 1980, but these were paid only on 29-10-81, The plaintiff, therefoer filed a suit on 5-2-82 for Rs. 10,000.00 agnst the defendant on account of loss of interest suffered by him because of late payment. He said that in this suit the defendant pleaded that because of certain disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff initiated under Rule 9(2) (a) of CSS Rules, 1972. he could not be paid his retirement dues. He said that this was a flase plea and this lowered him in the estimation of his collegues and friends. Then the plaint set out nature of disciplinary proceedings starting with a charge shet served on the plaintiff on 31-3-83 and his ultimate exoneration. The plaintiff said that the chargesheet was issued to him maliciously with the sole intention of defaming him. Thus, in brief the claim of the pontiff for damages.

(3.) The defendant filed an application under Order 7, Rules 10 and 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') praying that the plaint be rejected or returned to be presented to a proper court. It was said that the departmental inquiry, which was the basis of the suit, was held for an act of omission by the plaintiff, he being a government servant while in service according to the law and the rules, it. was further stated that the suit was not triable by a civil court as it related to service conditions of the plaintiff and could be tried only by the Tribunal. This application was allowed and so the appeal.