D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by the defendant appellant has been filed against the judgment dated 22.12.1995 and the corresponding decree dated 11.1.1996 passed by the Sub judge VIth, Ranchi in Money Suit No. 3 of 1993 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant/appellant.
(2.) THE plaintiff had filed the suit for decree for a sum of rupees 25 lakhs and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to publish in any daily news paper that the plaintiff is innocent and he was removed from the post of Superintendent illegally by asking him to proceed on leave. The case of the plaintiff is that being possessed of requisite qualifications with Degrees in Medicine as well as in Psychiatry, he was posted as the Superintendent of the Ranchi Mansik Arogyashala, Kanke, Ranchi, in September, 1978. During his tenure as the senior -most officer of the Hospital he had acquired vast experience in the field of Psychiatry and had built up a very good public image and a good practice in the field of Psychiatry. Some interested officials with mala fide objectives and designs, managed to get a letter sent to the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, prompting him to ask the plaintiff to hand over charge of the post of Superintendent and pursuant thereto, the defendant by his letter dated 12.9.1994 c directed the plaintiff to hand over the charge of his office to the Deputy Superintendent Dr. B. B. Singh and to proceed on leave. The plaintiff complied with the direction but in the process had suffered mental agony, besides tension and humiliation. Subsequent letters and representations of the petitioner were ignored by the defendant and he had eventually superannuated after attaining the age of his superannuation. Even after his superannuation, his retrial benefits were not promptly paid to him and it was only pursuant to the order of the High Court passed in a writ application filed by the plaintiff that his retiral benefits were released to him. The plaintiff has claimed that the direction of the defendant asking him to proceed on leave after handing over the charge of his office, is in utter violation of the Govt. Rules and instructions and against the principles of natural justice and on account of such acts, he had suffered not only mental agony and tension but also suffered humiliation or account of lowering down of his prestige in public estimate. It is further claimed that he had served notice under Sec. 80 CPC on the defendant on 8.1.1993 but even after receipt of the notice, the defendant did not respond to his demand and he therefore filed the suit for damages assessed at Rs. 25 lakhs against the defendant.
(3.) THE defendant had filed written statement denying the entire claim of the plaintiff and disputing the very maintainability of the suit. It was pleaded by the defendant that the suit was not maintainable since the plaintiff did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Sec. 80 C.P.C. and that the suit was barred by limitation and further, that no cause of action ever accrued to the plaintiff to file the suit. Further case of the defendant was that the plaintiff in his capacity as the Superintendent of the Hospital was responsible for the management and control of the office and the employees under him, besides the well being of the patients treated at the hospital. In the morning of 5.9.1984, a large number of patients had fled away from the hospital. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, made on the spot inquiry in presence of the plaintiff and found that the plaintiff was fully responsible for the incident. He submitted his report to the Health Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar and to the Commissioner; South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi. Simultaneously, steps were taken by the Administration to bring back the patients to the hospital and they succeeded in bringing back about 100 patients. Further case of the defendant was that on the previous day (4.9.1984), employees of the hospital had wanted to meet the plaintiff, but he refused to meet them and consequently, the employees went on strike. It is stated that being In -charge of the Hospital, the plaintiff had; failed to manage the affairs of the hospital effectively.;