BIDHU BHUSAN PURCAIT Vs. S A AZIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals filed in this Court in the year 1974 are glaring examples of laws delayed, casual and inadvertent errors in the procedure and application of law by the Courts and apathy and reluctance of the respondents Union of India and its officers in speedy disposal of cases by the Courts.

(2.) Original plaintiff Bidhu Bhusan Purkait who filed Money Suit No. 203 of 1951 giving rise to Money Appeal No. 21 of 1967 in the Courts below and Second Appeal No. 104 of 1974 before this Court, as also Money Suit No. 154 of 1953 giving rise to Money Appeal No. 20 of 1967 in the Courts below and Second Appeal No. 105 of 1974 before this Court, has died and his heirs, namely, his widow and sons have been substituted as appellants before this Court in his place vide order No. 7, dated 6-7-1976. Money Suit No. 203 of 1951, Money Appeal No. 21 of 1967 were, and Second Appeal No. 104 of 1974 is filed against only one defendant-respondent, namely, S. A. Aziz. Money Suit No. 154 of 1953, Money Appeal No. 20 of 1967 had and Second Appeal No. 105 of 1974 has three defendant-respondents including the Union of India. The two money suits, however, were heard together and disposal of by a common judgment and decree. Similarly the two money appeals were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment and decree. Although two separate appeals have been filed before this Court, being Second Appeal No. 104 of 1974 and Second Appeal No. 105 of 1974, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(3.) Stating in brief, the original plaintiff's case was, which the appellants seek to continue, that he was an employee of the Government of India in the Telegraph Section of the Posts and Telegraphs Department. He worked in the gazetted rank of telegraph engineer in Wireless Service, Class II, since June, 1946 and worked as S. D. O., Telegraphs, till March, 1948. During this period and thereafter the defendants created and tried to create false evidence against him, lodged false complaints, concocted evidence, made false reports against him and laid false traps to implicate him in false criminal cases on the false allegation of taking bribe and coerced employees of the Telegraph Department to give false evidence and report to the police. They got searches made in the office and premises of the original plaintiff during his absence on duty and made false reports to his departmental superiors. According to him, by these acts and conduct the defendants created prejudice in the minds of the superior officers of the original plaintiff who acting upon their suggestions degraded and reverted him as Engineering Supervisor on 18-4-1949. This reduction in rank was done violating the mandatory requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the statutory rules in this behalf, as a result of which he sustained pecuniary loss, loss of position and prestige, worries and mental agony. He valued, however, his suits for damages tentatively at the time of the filing of the suits at R. 1,300/- only, the details whereof have been given in the plaints of the respective suits. Defendant of Money Suit No. 203 of 1951 appeared and filed written statement, but thereafter left the case for good. In Money Suit No. 154 of 1953 the Union of India and other defendants appeared and filed their separate written statements. In the written statements objection was raised as to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that no notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was served either upon the defendant of Money Suit No. 203 of 1951 or upon defendants 1 and 2 of Money Suit No. 154 of 1953. They maintained that all their acts were done in the official capacity in discharge of their respective duties. In the absence of a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure the suits were not maintainable. They denied to have acted with any malice or to have done anything irregular or illegal. They asserted that they did not create any false document or false evidence, they coerced none. They did nothing false. They concocted nothing. The sole defendant of Money Suit No. 203 of 1951 was/is an employee of the Posts and Telegraphs Department. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 of Money Suit No. 154 of 1953 were/are employees of the Special Police Establishment of the Home Ministry, Government of India.