N N SETH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants praying for a decree for damages. The plaintiff has sought for a decree for payment of Rs.7 lac as damages for causing mental torture, harassment, loss of reputation and loss of promotion.

(2.) A departmental enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff and in pursuance thereof the plaintiff was dismissed from service and the order of dismissal was passed by the then DIG, Delhi Police vide order dated 18/9/1964. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the then Inspector General of Police, who by order dated 27/9/1965 set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for conducting de novo enquiry. Pursuant to the de novo enquiry conducted against the plaintiff he was dismissed from service by the Inspector General of Police under Order dated 16/11/1965. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal order the plaintiff preferred a representation to the then Chief Commissioner of Delhi which was dismissed. Accordingly, the plaintiff preferred a writ petition in this court which was disposed of by this court setting aside the impugned order of dismissal on the ground that there was violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the said enquiry. Thereafter the defendants conducted a second de novo enquiry against the plaintiff on completion of which the plaintiff was dismissed from service, against which he again preferred an appeal to the Inspector General of Police which was dismissed. The plaintiff preferred a review petition which was also dismissed by the then Inspector General of Police vide order dated 28/3/1998. The plaintiff, thereafter preferred a representation to the Inspector General of Police, Delhi, who accepted the said representation and set aside the order of dismissal on the technical ground that the plaintiff attained the age of superannuation in the year 1969 and his dismissal after the age of superannuation cannot be upheld. The said order was passed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi on 3/10/1985. Hence the plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. In paragraph 14 of the plaint the plaintiff has stated that on account of illegal, invalid and ab initio void orders of the then Inspector General of Police and the Lt. Governor of Delhi, plaintiff suffered humiliation, mental torture, loss of reputation and loss of promotion and therefore, he is entitled to damages as sought for in the suit.

(3.) The defendants No.1 to 3 filed a written statement refuting the allegations made in the plaint and contending inter alia that the claim is time barred and that there is no cause of action to file the suit. The said defendants also filed an application in this court under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. The said application was registered as I.A. 600/1996. In the said application it is stated that the final order in respect of the plaintiff was passed on 30/10/1985 by the Lt. Governor of Delhi accepting the representation of the plaintiff and setting aside the order of dismissal on technical ground that the plaintiff retired from service prior to the date of dismissal. The defendants have also stated that on the own showing of the plaintiff the cause of action for filing the present suit arose on 18/9/1964 and thereafter on 15/11/1965 and thereafter on 10/12/1976 and that the plaintiff has not given any other date as the basis which gives him the cause of action to file the suit. It is also stated in the said application that the cause of action for filing the suit at the most and could be said to have last arisen on 30/10/1985 and thereafter since the suit was instituted in 1990 the same is ex facie barred by limitation.