M CHANDRAN Vs. TASHI NAMGYAL ACADEMY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff being felt aggrieved by the decree dated 23rd July, 1997 passed by the learned District Judge, (S and W), Sikkim at Gangtok in Civil Suit No. 14/1996 (earlier registered as Civil Suit No. 261 of 1987) dismissing his claim of Rs. 10 lakhs as damages against the respondents has filed this appeal. A prefatory note with a pathetic touch. A little lis which set its sail in the year 1987 lasted a whole decade in the trial Court. Processual protraction, plethora of technical pleas, entanglement in the fight over irrelevant and impertinent issues, lack of sensitivity in the Presiding Officer by freely permitting parties to lead evidence on points which had no semblance or bearing on the core issue, lack of Court management including the abortive attempt of the appellant in moving the Hon'ble Supreme Court for transfer of the suit to outside the state are some of the disturbing and sorrowful features in the case. This appeal in this Court had also no smooth sailing. Earlier three of the learned Judges of this Court one after the other reclused themselves to hear the matter because of certain reservations aired by the appellant.

(2.) The case of the appellant as presented in the plaint is that he is a former member of the Indian Revenue Service having been recruited in 1954 on the basis of a combined competitive examination for IAS and Allied Services conducted by the U.P.S.C. To his credit he held very senior and responsible positions in Civil Services in India as well as abroad. After his stint under the Government of India, he on 28th May, 1982 came to be appointed first as Vice-Principal and later as the Acting Principal in Tashi Namgyal Academy, Gangtok (hereinafter referred to as the T.N.A.) which was being managed by a Board of Governors constituted by the Government of Sikkim. Since November, 1983 the T.N.A. has become an autonomous body by virtue of the Tashi Namgyal Academy Board Act, 1983. On 25th April, 1983, the Government of Sikkim transferred his services to the Education Directorate. In or around this time he came across an advertisement and applied for the post of Vice Principal in DBMS English School, Jamshedpur (Bihar) (hereinafter referred to as DBMS school) and was appointed as such in April, 1984. He was required to join the post of Vice-Principal after re-opening of the school in the middle of June, 1984. In May, 1984 the authorities of the school cancelled his appointment. They took such decision because of a report they got from the respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 2) who was then the Principal of T.N.A. in which, as indicated above, the appellant was earlier serving. The said report furnished by the respondent No. 2 was false, malicious and highly derogatory. In view of the said report, he not only lost his employment as Vice Principal in DBMS school but also it resulted in loss of his name and fame, causing mental and physical agony, financial-economic injury which he monetarily sessed at Rs. 10 lakhs. Before commencing the suit, he wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Sikkim with as reference to the information he received from the DBMS school requesting him to have his "say" in the matter. He also sent copies of the said letter to some ex-officio members of the Tashi Namgyal Academy Board. He was told that the matter was being looked into but he never received any formal reply from them. Having found no other alternative he filed the present suit claiming dmages.

(3.) The respondents filed a joint written statement. They denied any knowledge of the appellant's appointment in DBMS school and subsequent cancellation of the same. They also denied that the appellant's appointment was cancelled because of any report sent by the respondent No. 2. It was pleaded in the written statement that even assuming that the authorities of DBMS school acted on the report of the respondent No. 2 but there was no mala fide on his part as he had simply acted on the confidential note made by the former Principal (one K.N.P. Nair) during whose period the appellant had worked in the T.N.A. In forwarding the confidential report to DBMS school the respondent No. 2 did nothing but merely performed a routine job and as such his action is protected. It was stated that the suit is a frivolous and vexatious one and as such it deserves dismissal.