LexWEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus DILIP KUMAR RAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A WEST BENGAL STA TE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. DILIP KUMAR RAY NOVEMBER 24, 2006 B [ARIJIT Pf.SAYAT ANDLOKESHWAR SINGHPANTA,JJ.] Service Law: Suspension-Malice and malicious prosecution-Harassment and loss C of reputation-Claim for damages-Superintending Engineer of the State Electricity Board was suspended for alleged misconduct and commission of various offences-Enquiry held and show cause notice issued proposing several punishments--;-High Court quashed the enquiry proceedings and directed the Board to treat the said employee on duty for the entire period D of suspension for all purposes-Board carried out the directions- Subsequently, the said employee filed a civil suit claiming damages for the institution of discip!i11G1y proceedings against him by the Board-Trial court decreed the suit and held that the employee was suspended for extraneous reasons-The trial court awarded damages of Rs. 50,0001- for harassment and Rs. 50, 0001- for loss of reputation-High Court upheld the award- E Correctness of-Held: Averments made in the plaint show that they are extremely vague and lacking in details-The award for damages is clearly indefensible-The High Court's judgment suffers fi"om various infirmities- The conclusions of the High Court are confusing, contradicto1y and do not convey any sense-High Court's judgment set aside. F Words & Phrases: "Malice and malicious prosecution"-Meaning of-E'Cplained. The respondent was a Superintending Engineer of the appellant-board. G Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for alleged misconduct and commission of various offences and he was placed on suspension. Since no charge sheet was issued within a period of four months a writ petition was filed by the respondent for quashing of the departmental proceedings. Accordingly, the charge sheet was issued. As the respondent's reply was found H unsatisfactory it was decided to hold an enquiry. A show cause notice was 554 •' WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. DILIP KUMAR RAY 555 issued proposing several punishments. A The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the enquiry proceeding, enquiry report and the show cause notice on the ground that the respondent was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was allowed with the direction that no further proceedings should be initiated against the respondent and that he should be treated as on duty for the entire B period of suspension for all purposes. The directions given by the High Court had been carried out. Subsequently, the respondent filed a civil suit claiming damages for the institution of disciplinary proceedings against him by the appellant. The trial C court decreed the suit and held that the respondent was suspended for extraneous reasons. The trial court awarded damages of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and Rs. 50,000/- for loss of reputation. The High Court upheld the·award as damages for harassment by treating the same as damages for malicious prosecution causing harassment by way of mental pain etc. The award for loss of reputation was also upheld. Hence the appeal. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. Malice in the legal sense means malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or excuse or for want of reasonable or probable cause. 1572-C) E S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India, AIR (1979) SC 49, relied on. Prabodh Sagar v. Punjab State Electricity Board, [2002) 5 SCC 630, State of A.P. v. Govardhanlal Pitti, [2003) 4 SCC 739, Chairman and M.D., B.P.L. Ltd v. S.P. Gururaja, JT (2003) Supp. 2 SC 515, State of Punjab v. UK. F Khanna, (2001) 2 SCC 330, Abbot v. Refuge Assurance Co., (1962) 1QB432, Jones Bros. (Hun Stanton) Ltd. v. Stevens, (1955) 1 QB 275, Lumley v. Gye, (1853) 2 E and B 216, Bromage v. Prosser, (1825) 1 C and P 673, Shearer Shields (1914) AC 808 and Dailison v. Cajfe1y, (1965) 1QB348, referred to. P. Ramanatha A iyar: "Advance Law of Lexicon"' 3rd Edn., referred to. G 2. While it is true that legitimate indignation does not fall within the ambit of malicious act, in almost all legal inquiries, intention, as distinguished from motive, is the all important factor. In common parlance, a malicious act has been equated with intentional act without just cause or excuse. 1572-DJ H 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R. A Kumaon Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girija Shankar Pant, [2001) 1 SCC 182, relied o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.