- (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. In the trial Court an application was submitted by the defendants pointing out that plaintiff claimed salary for the period from 7. 1. 94 to 24. 5. 94 treating her to be on duty with pay and also claimed interest @ Rs. 18% per annum. The appellant also preferred writ petition No. 3475/1995 which has been rejected by the High Court on 27th Sept. , 1996 and the High Court observed that the relief, which has been claimed in the writ petition, is already subject matter in the appeal preferred before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. On this application, the trial Court vide order dated 24th Oct. , 1996 ordered that the plaintiff may file amended plaint as per Order 6 Rule 2 CPC. Thereafter, one application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was submitted by the defendants, upon which, the trial Court held that no cause of action has been disclosed against the defendants nos. 3 to 8 and, therefore, the suit against the defendants nos. 3 to 8 was dismissed by the trial Court. While allowing the defendants' application and rejecting the plaint of the plaintiff against the defendants nos. 3 to 8, the trial Court observed that in case, the suit will be decreed against the defendants nos. 1 and 2- State of Rajasthan and the Director, Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan then the Court may also determine the liability of any of the defendants nos. 3 to 8. Therefore, the suit remained against the defendants nos. 1 and 2 -State of Rajasthan and the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner. The trial Court framed the issues and the plaintiff gave her statement and produced witness PW-2 Laxmi Sharma, PW-3 OP Shani, PW-4 Dr. DK Ranley and closed the evidence without reserving any right to lead evidence in rebuttal. On behalf of the defendants, witness DW-1 Nathulal Verma, the then District Education Officer (Primary), Jodhpur was examined. The plaintiff in her evidence produced as many as 127 documents whereas the defendants produced 5 documents in support of their case. The trial Court in the impugned judgment held that the plaintiff failed to prove that she was not officer incharge in civil original suit No. 21/85 and other officer - District Education Officer (Girls), Jodhpur was appointed as officer incharge. The trial Court observed that it cannot be believed that the plaintiff went as witness in the said suit and not as officer incharge. The trial Court also rejected the plaintiff's contention that since she was directed to give statement in said suit, therefore, she appeared as witness in the suit filed against the State and merely because she appeared as witness in the said suit she cannot be treated to be officer incharge. The trial Court also held that in said civil suit, the plaintiff was appointed as officer incharge by virtue of her post. The defendants also produced Ex. A/1 by which she was authorized to take part for assisting in the Court cases. The trial Court also held that in view of the order Ex. A/3,the plaintiff was officer incharge in said case. For holding as above, the trial Court considered the preponderance of probabilities also. On the basis of the above finding, the trial Court held that there was reasonable reason for giving charge-sheet to the plaintiff by the respondents and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any decree for damages, may she has been exonerated from the said charge.
(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. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the trial Court committed serious error of law in holding the plaintiff to be officer incharge in the said suit. The finding runs contrary to the documentary as well as oral evidence and further contrary to the trustworthy documentary evidence of the defendants themselves. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that when defendants' witnesses gave total false statement in Court then plaintiff sought permission to lead evidence in rebuttal and that was denied by the trial Court vide order dated 19th April, 2002. Said order deprived appellant from rebutting the evidence of the defendants, which according to the appellant-plaintiff is nothing, but a total lie. The appellant also submitted an application under Order 18 Rule 17 and 17a CPC on 17th May, 202 and prayed that the defendants' witness DW-1 Nathulal Verma gave vague statement and to clear the ambiguity, the witness may be recalled. The trial Court rejected the plaintiff's said application after observing that after going through the statement of the witness DW-1 Nathulal Verma, the Court finds no ambiguity in the statement, which requires further clarification or further cross-examination. The trial Court also held that so far as how much statement of DW-1 is to be relied upon can be decided at the time of final decision only. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the trial Court should have allowed further cross-examination of defendants' witness DW-1 Nathulal Verma and the order of the trial Court dated 14th Oct. , 2003 is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant-plaintiff submitted an affidavit in the trial Court on 20th Oct. , 2003, but that affidavit was not considered by the trial Court anywhere nor defendants were called upon to give reply to the affidavit of the plaintiff and the trial Court without considering said affidavit and without rebuttal of that affidavit, heard the final arguments in the case and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the trial Court should not have ignored the affidavit of the plaintiff nor could have refused to call upon the defendants to explain all facts and issues which have been raised by the plaintiff in her affidavit dated 20th Oct. , 2003. ;