H. Mukherji (Dr.) vs Swadesh Kumar Bhargava

A.A. Desai, J.—Respondent filed a suit for recovery of damages against the appellant for causing harassment. The appellant raised a preliminary question that in terms of section 14 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, (hereinafter called "the Act") the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The learned Civil Judge, however, rejected the objection. Hence this appeal by original defendant.

Mr. Darda. the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, while assailing the impugned order made a submission that undisputedly the appellant was a superior officer in the service of Central Government. The original plaintiff respondent was his subordinate. The act accused of for a remedy under Tort has definite nexus with the official function. The Civil Court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to try the suit claim. In support, he placed reliance on the Preamble, section 3(q) and section 14 of the Act. In his submission, the act complained of is covered by the term "service matter". It being so, the plaintiff was not at liberty to approach the Civil Court.

The Preamble declares that for adjudication, by the Tribunal of disputes and complaints, relating to recruitment, conditions of service and for matters connected or incidental, thereto, the Act came into being. Clause (q) to section 3 defines "service matters" which means, those relating the condition of service and inter alia other matters whatsoever. Section 14 confers jurisdiction to try such dispute or complaints on the Tribunal constituted under the Act and ousts the jurisdiction of all the Courts. Having regard to the relevant provision, it is explicit that any matter relating to recruitment, condition of service or incidental thereto cannot be dealt by any Court other than the Tribunal.

4-5. The respondent-plaintiff in his suit does not claim any relief in relation to cither his recruitment or condition of service. His main grievance is that the appellant while discharging the official function harassed him causing a mental injury. The question is, would it amount to a complaint relating to condition of service?

At this stage, Mr. Darda urged that the Act provides a remedy for condition of service as well as the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. This phraseology, according to the learned Counsel, covers any injury may be in tort to the employee at the hands of his superior officer. He further submitted that taking into account the total grievance, the act complained of is an outcome of day-to-day working in the official affairs. Hence he tried to urge that it is squarely covered by a term "incidental thereto".

A. I am unable to agree with the submission. The term "incidental thereto" has a relation with the recruitment and condition of service. The act must be ancillary to either of these items. Term "other matter whatsoever" in section 3(q) of the Act has to be read as those matters having proximity with the recruitment or condition of service, It could not be totally non-aligned to the broad items. The officer who takes upon himself to work in an atrocious manner or with ill-intention might be under the guise of discharge of official duties cannot be said to have affected any matter incidental to the condition of service. The respondent-plaintiff is entitled to prosecute his remedy in Civil Court having regard to the merit arising out of a trial. I do not think that the Tribunal under the Act can assume jurisdiction and the provisions in any manner oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The appeal is. therefore, dismissed.