IMPORTANT POINT
Suit for damages for harassment meted out to the plaintiff by the defendant deliberately and intentionally passing several orders abusing his official position as the administrative superior of the plaintiff is not within the province of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and such a suit is to be decided by the Civil Court.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.-Leave granted.

2. The respondent-plaintiff and the appellant-defendant were working as Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives and Chief Controller of Explosives respectively in the Department of Explosives, Government of India and were stationed at Nagpur. The respondent instituted a suit, Special 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.c.p.a. from the date of the suit till realisation". In the plaint, it is alleged that the defendant deliberately and intentionally passed several orders and took several proceedings against the plaintiff, abusing his official position as the administrative superior of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the defendant passed those orders and took those proceedings malafide 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 to ensure that the plaintiff is not appointed to the post of Chief Controller to which he was selected by the Union Public Service Commission in the year 1987. The plaintiff s case is that the defendant was holding the post of Chief Controller on an 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 and career of the plaintiff so that he is not appointed to the said post pursuant to his selection.

3. On receiving the notice of the suit, the defendant-appellant filed a miscellaneous application to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction. He 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 adjudicate 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 the learned Civil Judge. He held that the plaintiff s suit does not pertain to service matter 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 damages on account of alleged tortious acts of the defendant which have caused the plaintiff mental pain and injury, the subject-matter of the suit does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal created under the Act. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal - which order is challenged in this appeal.

4. The only contention urged by the defendant before the Civil Court - and which was reiterated before the High Court - is that in view of the constitution of the Administrative Tribunal under the provisions of the Act, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. We shall, therefore, confine ourselves to the said question alone. We shall proceed upon the 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 of the 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 of the present nature can be entertained by the Tribunal constituted under the said Act and whether on that account, the jurisdi