DR. H. MUKHERJEE versus S.K. BHARGAWA

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 123 · Decided: 09-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

,1 
<; 
~ 
I 
DR. H. MUKHERJEE 
A 
v. 
S.K. BHARGAWA 
APRIL 9, 1996 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.j 
B 
Administrative Tiibunals Act, 1985-Sections 14(1), 28 & 3(g}-Ex-
"'!,-' 
elusive Jurisdiction-Whether Civil Coiat's ju1isdiction is ba1Ted in suit for 
damagesfor harassment, by Central Govemment employee against his supe-
rior officer-Held, such a suit for damages is not within the province of Section c 
14-Civil Procedure Code, 1908--Section 9. 
Plaintiff/Respondent a Central Government employee, filed a Civil 
Suit against Defendant/Appellant, his senior officer, for damages, alleging 
that he deliberately and intentionally passed several orders and proceed-
ings against the Respondent, as his administrative superior, malafide, D 
actuated by vindicative attitude with a view to harass him; and that the 
Appellant also indulged in tempering official record with a view to involve 
the plaintiff in certain irregularities. 
Notice was issued to the appellant and he filed an application E 
submitting that since Administrative Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate 
disputes relating to service conditions of Government servants, Civil Court 
lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 
The Civil Court held that the suit does not pertain to service matter 
and the same is filed against the Defendant/ Appellant in his individual 
F 
capacity and not official capacity. Hence, Civil Court has jurisdiction to 
decide the suit. 
Appellant filed appeal before High Court, which was dismissed on 
the ground that the subject matter did not fall under jurisdiction of 
Administrative Tribunal, since the suit was for damages on account of G 
tortious act of the Appellant. 
Dismissing the appeal of the appellant, this Court 
HELD: 1. The Tribunals, under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 
1985, are conferred with the exclusive jurisdiction, powers and authority H 
123 
,,,.. 
124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996} SUPP. q.C.R. 
A 
exercisable immediately before the appointed day by all Courts (except the 
Supreme Court) in relation to the matters set out in Clause (a), (b) and 
(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 14. The present suit does not fall under 
any of the clauses. Such a suit for damages is certainly not within the 
province of Section 14. [128-R-C; El 
B 
2. In the instant case the suit appears to be one based on alleged 
tortious acts of the defendant committed with a view to harass the plaintiff 
and cause him mental pain and injury. Though at this stage one cannot 
say whether the allegations are true or false it has to be assumed that such 
a suit does lie according to law since no contention to the contrary has 
C been ur~ed either before this Court or before the City Civil Court or the 
High Court. This is a pure action for damages for deliberately harassing 
the plaintiff by passing several vindictive and malalide orders aud 
proceedings and also by fabricating official records. [125-F; 126 C-E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6973 of 
D 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.94 of the Bombay High 
Court in Appeal from Order No. 73 of 1993. 
S.K. Dholakia, Mrs. Veena Minocha ~d Arvind Minocha for the 
E 
Appellant. 
U.U. Lalit for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
R.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave grantefl. 
The respondent-plaintiff and the appellant-defendant were working 
as Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives and Chief Controller of Ex-
plosives respectively in the Department of Explosives, Government of India 
and were stationed at Nagpur. The respondent instituted a suit, Special 
G Civil Suit No. 996 of 1992, in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, 
Nagpur praying for a decree in a sum of Rupees two lakhs against the 
defendant "as damages for the harassment meted out to the plaintiff and 
award costs of the suit with future interest at 10 p.p.a. from the date of the 
suit till realisation". In the plaint, it is alleged that the defendant deliberate· 
H ly and intentionally passed several orders and took several proceedings 
. 
,
• 
<'.. 
.... 
1-1. MUKHERJEE v. S.K. BHARGAVA [.TEEV AN REDDY. 1.J 
125 
against the plaintiff, abusing his official position as the administrative A 
superior of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the defendant passed those 
orders and took those proceedings malajide and actuated by a vindictive 
attitude with a view to harass the plaintiff. It is also alleged that the 
defendant tampered the official record to involve the pl

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.