IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA OSA No. 23 of 2001. Judgement reserved on: Date of decision: May 5, 2008. Narain Singh ….. Appellant. Vs. Hanuman Prashad & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 3.. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This appeal has been directed against the judgement, decree dated 30th November, 1999 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Suit No. 20 of 1997, dismissing the suit of the appellant for recovery of Rs. 6,20,000/- as damages on account of his defamation/ harassment and harassment to his family members. 2. The appellant filed the suit as indigent person, his case is that he was appointed as driver by respondents No.1, 2 and his appointment was extended on 1.4.1994. He was given appreciation Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… letters for his good driving. The appellant discharged his duties with devotion. He is having a small family consisting of his parents, brothers, in-laws and he belongs to a respectable family. The respondents No. 1, 2 had informed him that they were discontinuing his employment and, therefore, he left Delhi and came to his village after 16.8.1995. At his native place, he was coerced by his wife, parents and other community members including relations regarding his behaviour and character, which was communicated to them by respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 16.8.1995 alleging therein that appellant is an indisciplined dishonest, doubtful, corrupt and disloyal person to the organization. The letter was believed by everyone and in this way the appellant was defamed in the society and in these circumstances, he had been living away from his village. The respondents No.1, 2 made false statements with the intention to defame the appellant. The appellant has suffered inasmuch as his reputation has been lowered in the eyes of his wife, parents, brothers and public at large including his relations, neighbourers and friends. In these circumstances, the appellant filed the suit. 3. The respondents No. 1 & 2 contested the suit by filing written statement. It has been pleaded that appellant was given the work of a contract driver somewhere in the year 1991-92. The appellant was introduced to respondent No.1 alongwith Attar Singh Madhaik, President Kupvi Herbarium Welfare Assoiciation, Kupvi, District Shimla as respondent No.1 was the President of Association of Development of Rural People (ADRP). He allowed the appellant to work on compassionate ground. The appellant worked for about two …3… years. His behaviour was not proper. He brought bad name to the organization. The appellant left the Association of Development of Rural People and approached respondent No. 1 for getting him some work. The respondent No.1 wanted to reform the appellant and he was asked to work again as a casual worker in the capacity of driver- cum- Peon in the South Asia Partnership India office on contract basis. After getting the appointment, the behaviour of the appellant changed and he became arrogant. The appellant started taking alcohol during the day time and he was found drunk during day time also. In one year of contract service, the appellant committed many antisocial activities, which compelled respondent No.1 to seek his explanation. The appellant was demoted from the post of driver to the post of driver-cum- personal attendant. The appellant gave an undertaking that he would reform himself and shall not give any further ground of complaint. The appellant started taking interest in making quick money by presenting inflated bills, receipts and he often used to take vehicle in the absence of respondent No.1 & 2 to his native place. On receiving various complaints regarding the misconduct of the appellant, the respondents No. 1 & 2 told him personally that his contract period would not be extended. He was also given a memo. The appellant also harassed the staff of the organization and threatened the staff members as well as respondents No. 1 & 2. In these circumstances, the appellant was removed from the job. The appellant gave threats of kidnapping and murder to respondent No.1. Therefore, FIR dated 22.12.1995 was registered against the appellant at Police Station, New Delhi. …4… 4. It has also been pleaded that letter of termination was sent by respondents No. 1 & 2 by registered post in a closed cover. The appellant of his own had allegedly shown the letter to others which does not constitute defamation. The objections of material particulars, suppression of material facts, the appellant having not approached the court with clean hands, estoppel and jurisdiction were also taken. It has been denied that respondents No. 1 & 2 have defamed the appellant. The claim of the appellant was denied. The appellant filed replication to the written statement and reiterated his stand which was taken by him in the plaint and denied the case of the respondents. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether defendants No.1 and 2 have defamed the plaintiff, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is decided in the affirmative to what extent the said defendants are liable for damages to the plaintiff? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff was addicted to drinking and thereby he was guilty of mis-conduct as an employee of the said defendants? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff threatened to kidnap the grand-daughter of defendant No.1 as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD. …5… 7. Relief. 6. The learned Single Judge while returning the finding on issue No. 1 has held that communication Ex. PW 1/A to appellant was sent at his home address under registered cover and, therefore, it cannot be said that respondents No. 1, 2 knew that communication Ex. PW 1/A would be opened by some person other than the appellant himself. It has been held that ingredients of malice on the part of respondents No. 1 & 2 or publication of communication have not been established. Consequently, the suit was dismissed on 30.11.1999. 7. The appellant sought permission to file the appeal as indigent person, but such permission was declined and the appellant later on furnished the court fee. 8. We have heard Mr. S.D. Gill, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Anuj Nag, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.3 and have gone through the record. PW 1 Narain Singh has stated that in the year 1995 he had gone to home on leave and when he returned back for duty he was informed by respondents No.1 & 2 that his services stood terminated. He asked them to give him letter of termination of his services on which he was informed that it had been sent to him by post. He returned back to his home on 24.8.1995 and his family members, i.e. parents, wife, uncle and brothers rebuked him on the basis of contents of the letter, copy Ex. PW 1/A, which contained abusive language. He belongs to respectable family. However, after the receipt of letter Ex. PW 1/A …6… terminating his service, his family members, villagers, as also the relations look down upon him and he has been socially boycotted. In cross examination, he has stated that letter Ex. PW 1/A was addressed to him by respondents No.1 & 2 under a registered cover, which was received by his father. Letter Ex. PW 1/A was read out to his father by a JBT teacher as per information given to him by his father. He has not named the JBT teacher who read the letter Ex. PW 1/A to the father of the appellant. 9. PW 2 Devi Ram has stated that they got the letter read over from a JBT teacher. PW 2 has contradicted PW 1 who has stated that the letter Ex. PW 1/A was read over to the father of appellant. The name of the father is Jiwan Singh. PW 2 also has not named the JBT teacher who allegedly read the letter. PW 3 Jagat Singh has also stated that the letter was read over by JBT teacher on the asking of the father of the appellant. PW 4 Sudershan Singh has stated that family members of the appellant informed him about the contents of the letter. PW 5 Basti Ram has also stated that letter was read over to the father of the appellant by JBT teacher. The appellant has not examined his father Jiwan Singh nor the JBT teacher, who allegedly read the letter Ex. PW 1/A on the asking of the father of the appellant. The letter Ex. PW 1/A was sent to the appellant in closed envelop under registered cover. The letter was meant for appellant and none else. If somebody else had unauthorisedly opened the letter which was meant for appellant and for that matter respondents No. 1 & 2 cannot be blamed. Moreover, as a matter of fact, it has not been proved that letter Ex. PW 1/A was in fact read over to the father …7… of the appellant by some JBT teacher inasmuch as neither father of appellant nor said JBT teacher have been examined as witnesses by the appellant. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that respondent No.1 & 2 had malice to lower the reputation of the appellant in the estimation of others or the respondents No.1 & 2 knew that the contents of letter Ex. PW 1/A would be made known to others through someone else to whom the letter was not addressed. On the basis of material on record, it can be safely inferred that contents of letter Ex. PW 1/A were not published by or at the instance of respondents No. 1 and 2. The learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record and no case for interference is made out. 10. No other point was urged. 11. The result of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge. May 5, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.