Whether court should grant damages against public officer for any acts done by him in official capacity?

On bare perusal of the Judgment of the learned Judge, I find that the
learned Judge has lost sight of the said provisions to erroneously come to the
conclusion that the Plaintiff was entitled for compensation for granting
electrical connection to said Gokuldas in terms of the said Act. In any event,
any acts done in good faith in official capacity in furtherance of the duties
cannot be a ground to award damages to the plaintiff when admittedly no
pecuniary loss has been established nor pleaded by the plaintiff. Learned
Judge has failed to consider the well settled principles of law while awarding
damages as, admittedly, no pecuniary loss has been established by the
plaintiff. Apart from that, the directions issued by the defendant no. 1 and 4
are in exercise of power conferred under the Public Health Act. The issue of
title or other rights to get said electricity connection are matters to be
adjudicated in the proper forum. Merely because such electricity connection
has been granted for domestic purpose would not by itself affect the rights, if
any, of the plaintiff to get their claim adjudicated as against the said
Gokuldas in accordance with law. Considering that the learned Judge failed
to consider the well settled principles of law whilst passing the impugned
order, I find that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge cannot be
sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The points for
determination are answered accordingly.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
FIRST APPEAL No. 62 OF 2007
Shri Shivaji B. Dessai,

 V
Shri Vithoba Babuso Adel,


 CORAM:- F.M. REIS, J

 Dated : 02.12.2016
Citation: 2017(2) MHLJ 382

Print Page

Whether disciplinary proceeding against govt servant can continue even after retirement even though no pecuniary loss is caused to Government?

 It is therefore apparent, that it is not only for pecuniary loss caused to the Government that proceedings can continue after the date of superannuation. An employee can be proceeded against, after the date of his retirement, on account of “... grave misconduct or negligence ...”. Therefore, even in the absence of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, it is open to the employer to continue the departmental proceedings after the employee has retired from service. Obviously, if such grave misconduct or negligence, entails pecuniary loss to the Government, the loss can also be ordered to be recovered from the concerned employee. It was therefore not right for the High Court, while interpreting Rule 10(1) of the 1971 Rules to conclude, that proceedings after the date of superannuation could continue, only when the charges entailed pecuniary loss to the Government.

Supreme Court of India

State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Pronab Chakraborty on 15 October, 2014

Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Arun Mishra

Citation; AIR 2015  SC 1278

Print Page