Food Corporation Of India & Ors vs Suraj Bhan
2013 Latest Caselaw 3788 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Date of decision: 29th August, 2013

+                               RFA 68/2008

       FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS         ..... Appellants
                  Through: Mr. K.A. Dewan and Mr. Deepak
                       Dewan, Advocates.

                                Versus
       SURAJ BHAN                                         ..... Respondent

                          Through:     Mr. Ankit Jain, Adv with respondent
                                       in person.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. This appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 30 th November, 2007 of the learned Additional District Judge (ADJ), Fast Track Court, Delhi in Suit No.51/06/93 filed by the respondent.

2. The said suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs.7,39,400/- from the appellant No.1 Food Corporation of India (FCI) and its Zonal Manager (North), Senior Regional Manager and District Manager (impleaded as defendants No.2 to 4 in the suit without naming any particular officer and appellants No.2 to 4 in this appeal) on account of damages suffered by the respondent, (i) due to physical and mental pain, loss of reputation and humiliation (Rs.2 lakhs); (ii) loss suffered due to the death of wife (Rs.2 lakhs); (iii) on account of loss suffered due to death of father (Rs.1.15 lakhs); (iv) expenses incurred in attending the criminal case lodged

by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the respondent relating to employment of the respondent with the appellant and in which the respondent was ultimately acquitted and the writ petitions which the respondent was compelled to file against the appellant and which were allowed (Rs.2,24,400/-) and interest etc. thereon.

3. Needless to state that the appellants contested the suit.

4. The learned ADJ has passed a decree in favour of the respondent and against the appellants for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 15% per annum, with the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- being apportioned, towards; (a) loss of reputation and humiliation (Rs.50,000/-); (b) expenses in taking the proceedings in the High Court and Supreme Court (Rs.25,000/-); (c) lost of interest on enhanced pension which the respondent could not get owing to the departmental proceedings and criminal/CBI proceedings which were ultimately decided in favour of the respondent (Rs.25,000/-); (d) loss of additional increments which the respondent would have got (Rs.25,000/-); and, (e) and loss of salary/pension (Rs.25,000/-).

5. Notice of this appeal was issued subject to the appellants depositing the decretal amount in this Court. In compliance therewith, a total sum of Rs.5,11,327/- has been deposited by the appellants in this Court. Vide order dated 1st December, 2008, subject to the respondent furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court, the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- then deposited by the appellants was ordered to be released to the respondent subject to furnishing security. Vide subsequent order dated 2 nd March, 2009,

the remaining amount deposited by the appellants was also ordered to be released to the respondent on the same terms and the Trial Court record requisitioned.

6. The respondent has filed cross-objections for enhancement of the amounts awarded to him, claiming full amount as claimed in the suit.

7. Monies deposited by the appellant No.1 FCI were released to the respondent in or about the year 2009 upon the respondent furnishing security of his agricultural property situated in Haryana.

8. The hearing of the appeal was expedited vide order dated 18 th October, 2012, the respondent being a senior citizen.

9. The counsel for the parties were heard on 28 th August, 2013 and today and during the hearing attention of the counsel for the respondent was invited to Mohamed Amin Vs. Jogendra Kumar Bannerjee AIR 1947 PC 108, C.B. Agarwal Vs. P. Krishna Kapoor AIR 1995 Delhi 154 and West Bengal State Electricity Board Vs. Dilip Kumar Roy (2007) 14 SCC 568 as discussed in the recent judgment dated 12th August, 2013 of the undersigned in RFA No.939/2003 titled Sannam Bharti Vs. D.T.C.

10. After some further hearing, the counsel for the respondent has fairly stated that the respondent will not press his cross-objections for enhancement of compensation than already awarded to him if the amounts already received by him are allowed to be retained by him and if the surety furnished by him is discharged.

11. The counsel for the appellants has stated that he has no instructions to give any such concession and has been heard on merits of the claim.

12. There can be no denying of the respondent having emerged unscathed in the departmental proceedings initiated twice against him and in the prosecution in relation to the discharge of his duties with the appellant No.1 FCI and the charges against him being not sustained. The losses, hardship and agony which any righteous employee suffers from such departmental proceedings and prosecution, ultimately found to be baseless, can well be imagined. The learned ADJ has in a detailed judgment running into 100 pages considered each and every aspect and is in my opinion justified in the award of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of damages in favour of the respondent.

13. The counsel for the respondent is also right in his contention that the Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 28 th February, 1992 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3133/1989 filed by the respondent has held that the issuance of the charge sheet by the appellants to the respondent after acquittal of the respondent in the criminal prosecution and on the same facts was bad. The respondent, owing to such illegal actions of the appellants was compelled to approach the Court and incurred expenses therein. There is nothing to show that the aspect of reimbursing the costs and expenses incurred by the respondent was considered in the orders in any of the proceedings which the respondent was so compelled to take. It is informed that the said order of the Division Bench of this Court, though was challenged by the appellant No.1 FCI before the Supreme Court, but without any success.

14. In view of the detailed judgment of the learned ADJ, need is not felt to burden this judgment with the details of the voluminous oral and documentary evidence already well digested in the judgment of the learned ADJ.

15. I therefore do not find any case to interfere with the well authored and well reasoned judgment of the learned ADJ.

16. Resultantly, the cross-objections of the respondent/plaintiff are dismissed as withdrawn and the appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Axiomatically, the surety bond furnished by the respondent while withdrawing the monies deposited by the appellants stands discharged and the respondent if so desires may approach the worthy Registrar for endorsement to the said effect and/or for release thereof.

17. In the circumstances, no costs.

18. Decree sheet be drawn up.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AUGUST 29, 2013 bs..