C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT in O. S. No. 36 of 1983 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole is the appellant.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT filed the suit against the appellant claiming damages of Rs. 20,000/- for the defamatory statements made against him by the appellant, i. e. , for the appellant alleging that he (respondent) while acting as Managing Director of the Central Farmers Services Co-operative Society (for short society ) indulged in malpractices and was having illicit intimacy with several ladies. Appellant filed his written statement taking the plea of justification by truth. Basing on the pleadings, the trial Court framed two issues for trail. In support of his case, respondent examined himself as P. W. 1 and another witness as P. W. 2 and marked Exs. A1 to A11. Appellant examined himself as D. W. 1 and two other witnesses as D. Ws. 2 and 3 and got marked Exs. X. 1 to X7 through witnesses. The Court held that respondent is entitled to Rs. 20,000/- as damages for the defamatory statements made by the appellant and accordingly passed a decree for Rs. 20,000/- claimed by the respondent. Hence, the appeal by the defendant in the suit.

( 3 ) THE point for consideration is what amount of damages, if any, is the respondent entitled to.

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant sending complaint to the superiors of the respondent, bringing to their notice the various irregularities committed by the respondent and his conduct does not amount to defamation more so because a departmental inquiry was held against the respondent and since no departmental inquiry would be initiated without prima facie case no question of defamation arises. It is his contention that report of the Inquiry Officer cannot be taken into consideration because the Inquiry Officer is not examined and in any event since it is for the respondent to prove actual or express malice, respondent who failed to establish the same is entitled to claim any damages, more so because the audit reports, Exs. X1 to X3, do show the financial irregularities committed by the Society. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent is that since the defence taken by the appellant is one of justification by truth and since the appellant failed to establish that the allegations made by him are true, the trial Court rightly awarded damages against the appellant. He relied on the observations at Pages 468 to 470 Street of "torts" (9th Edition), and also the observations at Pages 169 and 170 in salmond and Heuston on Law of Torts , (20th Edition) in support of his contention.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT who is an Officer in the Central Bank of India was sent on deputation to work as the Managing Director of the Society and worked as such during the tenure of the predecessor in office of the appellant as President of the Society. During the tenure of Presidentship of the appellant, respondent was deputed to inspect the affairs of the Society. On coming to know that fact appellant sent Ex. A. 5 (same as Ex. A10) complaint or representation against the respondent to the Chairman, Central Bank of India, alleging that the respondent has illicit connection with ladies and spoiled the image of the Society when he was the Managing Director of the Society and did not take proper interest in the working of the Society, and was abusing staff during his visits and was a habitual late comer and used to purchase fertilizers and pesticides from private dealers spending of lakhs of rupees with a view to earn commission from them. Basing on that complaint or representation, the authorities of Central Bank of India sent Ex. A1 questionnaire to the respondent for his response. Respondent sent a reply denying the allegation made against him. Subsequently the Branch Manager of Central Bank of India. Ongole, after making an enquiry submitted Ex. A. 11 Report that all the allegations made against the respondent are false and are made o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document