Holding

A suit for damages for alleged harassment does not constitute a "service matter" under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and therefore civil courts retain jurisdiction.

Summary

Dr. H. Mukherjee, a Central Government employee, filed a civil suit seeking Rs. 2 lakh in damages against his superior, S.K. Bhargava, alleging that the latter deliberately issued vindictive orders and tampered with official records to harass him and block his appointment as Chief Controller. The defendant contended that the suit fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and that the civil court lacked jurisdiction. The trial court held that the suit was not a service matter but an action for damages in the defendant's individual capacity, and therefore the civil court could entertain it. The Bombay High Court affirmed this view, dismissing the appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, holding that the suit does not fall within the definition of "service matters" under Section 14 of the Act, and consequently the civil court retains jurisdiction.

Issues considered

Whether a civil suit for damages arising from alleged tortious acts of a senior government officer, alleged to be motivated by harassment, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Whether the civil court is ousted from jurisdiction by Sections 14 and 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Legislation cited

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985s. 14(1), s. 28, s. 3(g)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 9
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Subjects

Administrative Tribunaljurisdictionservice matterstortdamagescivil suitCentral Government employeeharassmentSection 14Section 28Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

Judgment

,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
submitting that since Administrative Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate E
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 [.TEEVAN 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 plaintiff in certain
irregularities, all with a view Lo ensure that the plaintiff is not appointed to
B
the post of Chief Controller to which he was selected by the Union Public
Service Commission in the year 1987. The Plaintiffs case is that the
defendant wa holding the. post of Chief Controller on a ad hoc basis and
<'.. that when the plaintiff was selected by Union Public Service Commission
in 1987 for appointment to the post of Chief Controller on regular basis,
he indulged in a course of action designed to mar and tarnish the record c
and career of the plaintiff so that he is not appointed to the said post
pursuant to his selection. •·

On receiving the notice of the suit, the defendant- appellant filed a
miscellaneous application to dismiss the suit for want to jurisdiction. He D
submitted that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit
in view of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (the Act) and the
constitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal thereunder to adjudi-
cate disputes relating to service conditions of the government servants. The
defendant submitted that, if at all, such a suit can be entertained only by
the Tribunal created under the said Act. This objection was over-ruled by E
the learned Civil Judge. He held that the plaintiffs suit does not pertain
to service matters and that the suit is filed against the defendant in his
individual capacity and not in his official capacity. The defendant preferred
an appeal against the said order before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur
Bench). The learned single Judge held that since the suit is filed for F
damages on account of alleged tortiou-' acts of the defendant which have
caused the plaintiff mental pain and injury, the subject- matter of the suit
does not fall with;n the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal
created under the Act. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal - which order
is challenged in this appeal.
G
The only contention urged by the defendant before the Civil Court -
and which reiterated before the High Court - is that in view of the
_constitution of the Administrative Tribunal under the provisions of the Act,
0

th~ civil court has rio jurisdiction to entertain the suit. We shall, therefore,
confine ourselves to the said question alone. We shall proceed upon the H

....
:
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A assumption that it is a suit for damages for harassing the plaintiff and
causing him mental pain and injury by the defendant who is supposed to
have acted malafide, with a vindictive attitude, and had also indulged in
tampering of official record with a view to tarnish the record, image and
career to a plaintiff. We shall also proceed on the assumption that such a
suit is maintainable in law (Law of Torts). The question is whether the suit
B
of the present nature can be entertained by the Tribunal constituted under
the said Act and whether on that account, the jurisdiction of the civil court
is ousted.

Section 14 of tlie Act, which sets out the jurisdiction, powers and
c authority of Tribunals constituted under the Act, reads thus :

"14. Jwisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative
T!ibwzal. - (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,
the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from
the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exer-
D cisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the
Supreme Court) in relation to -

(a) recruitment, and matters concerning requirement, to any
All-India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil
post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or
E in the defence services, being in either case, a post filed by a
civilian;

(b) all service matters concerning -

(i) a member of any All-India Service; or
F I

(ii) A person not being a member of an AU-India Service or
a person referred to in clause (c) appointed to any civil
service of the Union or any civil post under the Union; or

(iii) A civilian [not being a member of an All-India Service
G
or a person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any
defence services or a post connected \vith defence,

and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian,
in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of
H any local or other authority within the territory of India or under
H. MUKHERJEE v. S.K. BHARGAVA (JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 127

the control of the Government of India or of any corporation (or A
society) owned or controlled by the Government;

(c) all service matters, pertaining to service in connection with the
affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed lo any service
or post referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause
(b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State B
Government or any local or other authority or any corporation (or
society) or other body, at the disposal of the Central Government
• for such appointment.

Sub-sections (2) and (3) are omitted as unnecessary."
c
Section 28 declares that :

"On and from the date from which any jurisdiction, powers and
authority becomes exercisable under this Act by a Tribunal in
relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any D
Service or post or service matters concerning members of any
Service or persons appointed to any Service ot post, no court
except (a) the Supreme Court; or (b) any Industrial Tribunal,
Labour Court or other Authority constituted under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1.947 or any other corresponding law for the time
being in force, shall have or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, E
powers or authority in relation to such recruitment or matters
concerning such recruitment or such service matters 11
•

The expression 11 service matters 11 occurring both in Section 14 and
Section 28 is defined in clause (q) of Section 3 in the following words :
F
1
''servicc mal1.ers', in relation to a persons, means all matters
relating' to the conditions of his service in connection with the
affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other
authority within the territory of India or under the control of the
Government of India, or, as the case may be, of any corporation G
(or society) owned or controlled by the Government, as respects-

(i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retire-
ment benefits;

(ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, H
128 SUPREME COURT REPOIUS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A premature retirement and superannuation;

(iii) leave of any kind;

(iv) disciplinary matters; or

(v) any othe' matter whatsoever."
B
The Tribunals under the Act arc thus qonferred with the exclusive
jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before the ap-
pointed day by all courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to the
matters set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of S1'b-section (1) of Section 14.
C The question is whether the present suit does fall under any of the said
clauses. We do not think that it does. 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. At this stage, it is not our
province to say that whether the allegations are true or false . We have to
take the plaint allegations as they stand. We also assume for the purpose
D of this appeal that such a suit does lie according to law since no contention
to the contrary has been urged before us nor was urged before the civil
court or the High Court. This is a pure action lfor damages for deliberately
harassing the plaintiff by passing several vindictive and malafide orders and
proceedings and also by fabricating official records. Such a suit for
E damages is certainly not within the province Cl>f Section 14.

The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.

K.T. Appeal dismissed.