IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 516 of 2008 Between: D. John Samuel S/o David Kalyan Garden, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad-94 ..... PETITIONER AND chairman/Executive Director, NTPC., M.C.H. Complex, R.P. Road, Secunderabad-500 003. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus to the respondent for granting me Rs. 80lakhs as Punitive/Exemplary Damages, by recovery from including other 4 Vigilance staff namely G. Sodhi, B.N. Shankaraiah, G. Swamy T. Praveen Kumar sharing equally and pass such order or orders as deemed fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO (SC FOR N.C.T.E) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 516 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Assistant Engineer in the N.T.P.C. Vide proceedings, dated 07.08.2000, the respondent informed the petitioner that he has ceased to be in service, on account of the unauthorized absence. A writ petition filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to grant a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- to the petitioner towards damages against certain officials named in the prayer. The petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person, submits that his services were wrongfully terminated and he was subjected to mental and financial harassment, on account of the wrong acts of the respondent and certain other officials. He has referred to several facts, some of which relate to the proceedings between the parties. In effect, the petitioner claims what are known as “punitive/exemplary damages” from the four vigilance employees named in the prayer. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that once the petitioner ceased to be in service, he cannot maintain the present writ petition. He further submits that the claim of the petitioner is baseless and at the most, he has to pursue such remedies in a civil Court. The order, which brought about the cessation of services of the petitioner, has become final, with the dismissal of the writ petition and writ appeal filed by the petitioner. By mentioning several facts, the petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- as damages. It hardly needs any emphasis that a writ petition cannot be the remedy for recovery of damages. In a claim of this nature, necessary facts have to be pleaded and proved, by leading oral and documentary evidence. Such a facility does not exist in writ petitions. The record discloses that the petitioner has already filed O.S.No.18 of 1999 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapally and an ex parte decree was passed therein on 22.07.2002. It is not known as to what further steps were taken therein. At any rate, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 22.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 516 of 2008 Date: 22.04.2008 JSU