USHA SAHNI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for award of damages of Rs. 71,500/- on account of damages which according to her she suffered because of initiating departmental inquiry against her by the respondents-defendants as it caused mental harassment and mental torture to the plaintiff. According to plaintiff, the respondents treating her to be the officer incharge on behalf of the State in Civil Original Suit No. 21/85, initiated departmental inquiry against the appellant plaintiff wherein she was exonerated by order of the disciplinary authority dated 24th July, 1993. THE appellant's-plaintiff's contention is that the respondents from the very beginning were well aware that the appellant was not the officer incharge in the said civil original suit No. 21/85 but still she was asked to submit her explanation and when she submitted her complete explanation, then by ignoring that explanation, the respondents decided to hold inquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules of 1958. During this period of inquiry, which continued from the month of Feb. , 1993 to July, 1993, promotions were given to the persons junior to the appellant- plaintiff and even after her exoneration in the said departmental inquiry, further promotions were given to the persons junior to the appellant-plaintiff. However, the appellant's admitted that matter of her promotion was kept in sealed cover by decision dated 3rd Dec. , 1993. THE appellant challenged the order of the department dated 3rd Dec. , 1993 by filing SBCWP No. 5931/1993. THE said writ petition was decided by this Court by order dated 3. 2. 1994 and the copy of the said decision of this Court was sent to the defendant No. 2 by the plaintiff-appellant by speed post on 11. 2. 1994. Appellant also submitted a contempt petition being S. B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 99/1994 and, thereafter only on 23rd May, 1994, the plaintiff-appellant was given promotion and was posted in Jodhpur itself. In pursuance of the order of promotion dated 23rd May, 1994, the plaintiff-appellant joined the duties of her post of promotion on 25th May, 1994. THE plaintiff further stated in the plaint that neither she get the salary from 7. 1. 1994 to 24. 5. 1994 nor she was given due increments. THE plaintiff also pleaded that before all that on 28th Sept. , 1992, she came to know from one of her husband's friend that during visit of Hon'ble Chief Minister, some school children held demonstration and in that demonstration they shown banner wherein plaintiff's name has been shown as a corrupt officer and that caused mental torture to the plaintiff. However, fortunately, her name was not shown in the news published by the newspapers on the next day. THE plaintiff further pleaded that on 29th Sept. , 1992 she gave a letter to the defendant No. 2 through defendant No. 4 and prayed that the action may be taken against the officers of the Education Department because of their corruption. THE said letter was sent for proper action by defendant No. 4 to defendant No. 2 on 30th Sept. , 1992. THE defendant No. 2 also sought explanation of the plaintiff vide letter dated 12th Oct. , 1992 and according to the plaintiff in the said explanation the principal question was whether the plaintiff was officer incharge in the above civil original suit No. 21/85. THE plaintiff gave her explanation and submitted that she was never officer incharge in the said case as she was holding the post of District Education Officer (Girls) and was incharge of Account Section only. THE Court cases were dealt with by the District Education Officer, General Section. THE appellant's contention is that since the respondents were knowing it well that she was not officer incharge in the said civil original suit No. 21/85, still they initiated proceedings for departmental inquiry against the appellant for not conducting said case properly and granted promotions to the certain junior persons during short period of inquiry and gave promotion to the plaintiff but after delay, therefore, she is entitled for damages against the respondents, which is about Rs. 50,000/- because of causing harassment to the plaintiff from 28th Sept. , 1992 to 24th May, 1994, expenses for making correspondence Rs,5,000/-, expenses incurred by plaintiff on telephone Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 3,500/- which she incurred for travelling to restore her position on the post of promotion and other travellings and the plaintiff also claimed Rs. 6,000/- for expenses incurred by her for filing writ petition No. 5931/1993 and contempt petition No. 99/1994 as well as Rs. 6,000/- for conducting SBCWP No. 3472/1995. In total, the plaintiff claimed decree of Rs. 71,500/- with interest @ 18% per annum.

(3.) THE trial Court rejected the appellant's claim for each and individual item under which she claimed damages. Ultimately, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 8th Dec. , 2003,hence, this appeal.