2006 (11) TMI 667 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Overturns High Court: Disciplinary Proceedings Flawed, Suspension Order Unsustainable, No Damages Awarded.

West Bengal State Electricity Board Versus Dilip Kumar Ray

The SC allowed the appeal, overturning the HC's judgment due to its contradictory and confusing conclusions. The SC found that the disciplinary ... Claiming damages for defamation - harassment and another for loss of reputation - malicious prosecution causing harassment by way of mental pain etc - Challenged the Order passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court - HELD THAT:- The legal meaning of 'malice' is 'ill will or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action'. This is sometimes described as 'malice in fact'. 'Legal malice' or 'malice in law' means 'something done without lawful excuse'. In other words, 'it is an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others'. A bare perusal of the averments made in the plaint show that they are extremely vague, lacking in details and after the learned trial judge held that the Board alone was responsible because it was not established that any individual officer was responsible for it and dispute only have been revealed by the high-power enquiry which the court was incompetent to direct, the award for damages is clearly indefensible. The High Court's judgment suffers from various infirmities. Firstly, it has taken a confused view of the matter. It failed to notice that the trial court itself had held 'it was highly probable' that the plaintiff was suspended for extraneous reasons. This conclusion is based on surmises and conjectures. This had not been established. As noted, the High Court noted that the Trial Court itself held that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages for defamation. But while affirming the judgment and decree, it held that the damages granted for harassment must be read as damages for malicious prosecution causing harassment. To say the least, all the conclusions are confusing, contradictory and do not convey any sense. Looked at from any angle the impugned judgment of the High Court is indefensible and is set aside. The appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs. Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent.2. Whether the appellant provided reasonable opportunity and access to documents to the respondent.3. Validity of the suspension order and the delay in the disciplinary process.4. Entitlement to damages for harassment and loss of reputation.5. Whether the actions of the appellant amounted to malicious prosecution.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the Disciplinary Proceedings:The appellant initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, an employee, alleging misconduct and various offenses. The respondent was placed under suspension pending investigation and disciplinary proceedings. The High Court directed the Board to issue a charge sheet, which was subsequently issued with ten charges. The respondent denied the charges and requested access to certain documents, which was denied, leading to further writ petitions. The High Court ruled that the respondent was not given reasonable opportunity and access to vital documents, thereby vitiating the enquiry proceedings.2. Reasonable Opportunity and Access to Documents:The respondent filed multiple writ petitions claiming denial of access to essential documents, which prejudiced his defense. The High Court directed that proper inspection of documents be granted and that the enquiry should proceed only after ensuring reasonable opportunity to the respondent. Despite these directions, the respondent continued to claim denial of opportunity, which the High Court found valid, ultimately concluding that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated due to lack of reasonable opportunity and access to documents.3. Validity of the Suspension Order and Delay:The suspension order was issued on 30th July 1985, and the charge sheet was issued on 17th January 1986. The enquiry concluded on 1st June 1987, with the report submitted on 8th June 1987. The High Court found that the delay in issuing the charge sheet and completing the enquiry was unreasonable. It held that the suspension order could not be sustained and should be revoked, treating the respondent as on duty for the entire suspension period and directing payment of arrears.4. Entitlement to Damages for Harassment and Loss of Reputation:The respondent filed a civil suit claiming damages for harassment and loss of reputation due to the disciplinary proceedings and defamatory publications. The trial court awarded Rs. 50,000 for harassment and Rs. 50,000 for loss of reputation. The High Court upheld the award, treating the damages for harassment as damages for malicious prosecution causing mental pain. The appellant argued that the findings of the trial court and High Court were contradictory and lacked a basis for awarding damages.5. Malicious Prosecution:The appellant contended that there was no specific averment or evidence of malicious prosecution. The trial court did not frame an issue on malicious prosecution, and no evidence was led to show it. The High Court's judgment was criticized for being confusing and contradictory, as it upheld the damages for harassment by interpreting them as damages for malicious prosecution without a clear basis. The Supreme Court found the conclusions of the High Court and trial court to be based on surmises and conjectures, ultimately setting aside the High Court's judgment.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding the High Court's judgment indefensible due to its contradictory and confusing conclusions. The award of damages for harassment and loss of reputation was set aside, with no order as to costs.