MADHU SANGHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Order VIII Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) praying for announcing the judgment and decreeing the suit against the defendants jointly and severally has been moved by the plaintiffs.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this application, briefly stated, are as follows. Ashok Sanghi (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives, the present plaintiffs) instituted civil suit No. 5 of 1996 for damages in the sum of Rupees one crore plus interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum till the realisation thereof. The case as made out in the plaint, in brief, is that on selection the deceased was appointed as Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Design Engineer, a gazetted post, and joined as such on 4.4.1972. In July, 1979, his services were placed under the control of Bhakra Beas Management Board (hereafter referred to as BBMB) by an order of the Chief Engineer, Beas Sutlej Link Project. He had been drawing salary and allowances as permissible to the post held by him. However, while on extended extra -ordinary leave, he was transferred to Beas Management Board vide order dated 19.1.1981 and was relieved vide order dated 6.2.1981 w.e.f. 31.1.1981 retrospectively. The deceased had to file a writ petition to challenge this order which became infructuous because of withdrawal of the transfer orders and he joined his duties in BBMB w.e.f. 4.4.1981. His pay for 4.4.1981 to June, 1981 was not paid and he had to file a writ petition in the High Court. The General Manager, Beas Project, however, charge sheeted the deceased vide memorandum dated 21.7.1981 without any jurisdiction as he was an employee of the BBMB and not of the Beas Project. The deceased had to file another writ petition in the High Court. In the meanwhile, the proceedings in the departmental inquiry continued and the deceased was arrested in a case under Sections 353, 332, 504 and 506, IPC registered at the instance of the Inquiry Officer.. The trial Court acquitted the deceased in the said criminal case with the observations that the Inquiry Officer (complainant in the aforesaid criminal case) and the presenting officer "did not have unbiased mind and they acted with hostile animus" against the deceased. Criminal appeal against the said acquittal was dismissed by the High Court. In view of the assurance that new Inquiry Officer would be appointed to conduct the departmental proceedings against the deceased and acceptance of offer as in memo No. 1901 -02/CWP -555/84, the aforesaid writs filed by the deceased were withdrawn. The deceased was then declared surplus vide order dated 23.8.1985 of the General Manager, Beas Project and was transferred to Central (Surplus Staff) Cell of the Department of Personnel and Training without prejudice to the departmental inquiry and criminal case etc., already under consideration. On conclusion of departmental inquiry, the deceased was found guilty and liable to be dismissed from service but taking a lenient view only the period of his alleged absence from duty was treated as "unauthorised" loosing pay etc. for such period resulting in "break in service" not to be condoned. The Appellate Authority, however, exonerated the deceased of the charges against him. The defendants thereafter proceeded to recover rent from the deceased for rent free accommodation for the period 1.1.1981 to 4.8.1985 and also preferred review petition for review of the order quashing the punishment imposed on the deceased in the departmental inquiry and the orders of appellate authority were not implemented despite orders by the concerned Minister passed on the representation of the deceased and the pay, allowances and arrears to which the deceased was entitled to were not granted and he was made to work against a post of lower grade than the post held by him. By all these acts of the defendants, the deceased and his dependant family members were put to a state of deprivation and starvation for many years resulting in injury to their physical, mental and psychological health, untold miseries, sufferings and pains. Hence the suit assessing the general damages in the sum of Rs. 90,00,000, special damages in the sum of Rs. 9,50,000 and Rs. 50,000. However, the claim has been confined to Rs. 25 lacs only.

(3.) The judgment and decree has now been prayed on the grounds that except defendants No. 5, 6 and 15 other defendants are not at issue, therefore, a judgment may be pronounced against defendants No. 1 to 4 and 7 to 14 and decree may be ordered to be drawn against them. Regarding issue No. 3 it is claimed that the question involved therein already stand answered in Dr H. Mukharjee v. S.K. Bhargawa, 1996 (2) Service Cases Today 702 (SC). And for the remainder the non -filing of written statement by non -contesting defendants is legally admission of the claim of the plaintiffs and in view of the admission of various documents filed with the plaint as also the deemed admissions of various such documents vide order dated 20.12.1999, a judgment be pronounced and decree passed against defendants No. 5 to 8 and 15 and thus the suit can be and may be decreed against all the defendants.