Case: West Bengal State Electricity Board Vs. Dilip Kumar Ray

of a duty imposed by law, such as the institution of a prosecution as a necessary condition precedent to a civil action, does not constitute "malice". (Abbott v. Refuge Assurance Co., (1962) 1 QB 432).47. "Malicious prosecution" thus differs from wrongful arrest and detention, in that the onus of proving that the prosecutor did not act honestly or reasonably, lies on the person prosecuted." (per DIPLOCK U in Dailison v. Caffery, (1965) 1 QB 348)). (Stroud, 6th Edn., 2000).48. Malice means and implies spite or ill-will. Incidentally, be it noted that the expression "mala fide" is not meaningless jargon and it has its proper connotation. Malice or mala fides can only be appreciated from the records of the case in the facts of each case. There cannot possibly be any set guidelines in regard to the proof of mala fides. Mala fides, where it is alleged, depends upon its own facts and circumstances. (See Prabodh Sagar v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others. (2000) 5 SCC 630. 49. The legal meaning of malice is "ill will or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action". This is sometimes described as "malice in fact". "Legal malice" or "malice in law" means "something done without lawful excuse". In other words, "it is an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others". (See State of A.P. v. Govardhanlal Pitti (2003) 4 SCC 739 ).50. The word "malice" in common acceptation means and implies "spite" or "ill will". One redeeming feature in the matter of attributing bias or malice is now well settled that mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill will. There must be cogent evidence available on record. In the case of Jones Bros. (Hunstanton) Ltd. v. Stevens (1955) 1 QB 275: (1954) 3 All ER 677 (CA), the Court of Appeal has reliance on the decision of Lumley v. Gye (1853) 2 E&B 216: 22 L.JQB 463 as below: "For this purpose maliciously means no more than knowingly. This was distinctly laid down in Lumley v. Gye (1853) 2 E&B 216: 22 LJQB 463 where Crompton, J. said that it was clear law that a person who wrongfully and maliciously, or, which is the same thing, with notice, interrupts the relation of master and servant by harbouring and keeping the servant after he has quitted his master during his period of service, commits a wrongful act for which he is responsible in law. Malice in law means the doing of a wrongful act intentionally without just cause or excuse: Bromage v. Prosser (1825) 1 C&P 673: 4 B&C 247. Intentionally refers to the doing of the act; it doe not mean that the defendant meant be spiteful, though sometimes, as for instance to rebut a plea of privilage in defamation, malice in fact has to be proved". (See State of Punjab v. U.K. Khann and others (2001) 2 SCC 330 ).51. Malice in law. "Malice in law" is however, quite different. Viscount Haldane described it in Shearer Shields, (1914) AC 808 as: "A person who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention of the law is not allowed to say that he did so with the innocent mind: he is taken to know the law, and he must act within the law. He may, therefore, be guilty of malice in law, although, so far the state of mind is concerned, he acts ignorantly, and in that sense innocently". Malice in its legal sense means malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or excuse, or fro want of reasonable or probable cause. (See S.R. Venkatarcunan v. Union of India (1979) 2 SCC 491 ).52. Malice-per common law. "Malice" in common law or acceptance means ill will against a person, but in legal sense means a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse. (See Chairman and M.D., B.P.L. Ltd v. S.P. Gururaja and others JT 2003 (Suppl. 2 ) SC 515 and Chairman and MD, BPL Ltd. v. S.F. Gururaja and others (2003) 8 SCC 567 ).53. While it is true that legitimate indignation does not fall within the ambit of malicious act, in almost all legal inquiries, intention, as distinguished from motive is the all important factor. In common parlance, a malicious act has been equated with intentional act without just cause or excuse. (See Jones Bros. (Hunstanton) v. Stevans (1955) 1 QB 275: (1954) 3 All ER 677 (CA)). Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant and others. (2001) 1 SCC 182 ).54. A bare perusal of the averments made in the plaint show that they are extremely vague, lacking in details and after the learned trial judge held that the Board alone was responsible because it was not established that any individual officer was responsible for it and dispute only have been revealed by the high-power enquiry which the court was incompetent to direct, the award for damages is clearly indefensible. The High Courts judgment suffers from various infirmities. Firstly, it has taken a confused view of the matter. It failed to notice that the trial court itself had held "it was highly probable" that the plaintiff was suspended for extraneous reasons. This conclusion is based on surmises and conjectures. This had not been established. As noted above, the High Court noted that the Trial Court itself held that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages for defamation. But while affirming the judgment and decree, it held that the damages granted for harassment must be read as damages for malicious prosecution causing harassment. To say the least, all the conclusions are confusing, contradictory and do not convey any sense. Looked at from any angle the impugned judgment of the High Court is indefensible and is set aside.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In our opinion, the suit was maintainable and properly decreed. There can remain no doubt on the basis of the findings of fact that the plaintiff had suffered a grievous wrong. The limitation in English Courts on the basis of the law prevailing in England do not extend and to the Indian Courts. Just as a criminal case puts the heavy machinery of the Law against an accused, so does a disciplinary proceeding but the heavy machinery of a State of other authority against the person accused of Service offence. If the State employer is unable to show that there was any reasonable cause or justification for the proceedings if the findings are found at certain stages to have been even perverse then and in that event, the technical conclusion is, that the employee has been made the victim of a proceeding, the cause for which was not a genuine inquiry into the conduct of the petitioner. What the other extraneous cause was if any, would be for the employee to allege and the employer to show as non-existent. If no causes is shown, the court is compelled to conclude that the cause was extraneous and not worth bringing out into the open public scrutiny. The present trend of the law is to allow a remedy if a wrong has been committed. On that principle also, the plaintiffs suit should lie.The High Court upheld the award of Rs.50,000/- as damages for harassment by treating the same as damages for malicious prosecution causing harassment by way of mental pain etc. The award of Rs.50,000/- was for loss of reputation was also upheld.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant- Board submitted that the whole basis on which the compensations have been awarded are really non-existent. The conclusions of the trial judge and the High Court are contrary to the whole foundation of the judgment and decree of the trial court. In the order passed by learned Single Judge in respect of the departmental proceedings there was no observation about the proceedings being mala fide or for extraneous reasons. Only on the ground that reasonable opportunity was not granted to the employee-respondent No.1, the writ petition filed by him was allowed. There was no specific averment regarding any malicious prosecution. The only averment made in the plaint shows that wild allegations were made without any material to substantiate them. Interestingly the trial court did not frame an issue as to whether there was any malicious prosecution. No evidence was led even to show that there was any malicious prosecution. It was rightly noted by the High Court that the trial court had held that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages for defamation. Curiously enough the High Court upheld the award of damages of Rs.50,000/- by coming to the conclusion that the amount appeared to have been awarded as damages for malicious prosecution causing harassment. The reasons are unfathomable.In response, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the judgment and decree of the trial court as affirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment. According to him an honest officer was being harassed by unnecessary proceedings and the innocence of the respondent no.1 was established by the judgment of the High Court in the writ petition.Malice and Malicious Prosecution as stated in the Advance Law of Lexicon, 3rd Edition by P. Ramanatha Aiyar read as- Unlawful intentWill; intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm, Express or actual malice is ill will or spite towards the plaintiff or any indirect or improper motive in the defendants mind at the time of the publication which is his sole or dominant motive for publishing the words complained of. This must he distinguished from legal malice or malice in law which means publication without law full excuse and does not depend upon the defendants state of mind.The intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act. II. Reckless disregard of the law or of a persons legal rights. Ill will: wickedness of heart. This sense is most typical in non legal contexts"."Malice means in law wrongful intention. It includes any intent which the law deems wrongful, and which therefore serves as a ground of liability. Any act done with such an intent is, in the language of the law, malicious, and this legal usage has etymology in its favour. The Latin malitia means badness, physical or moral - wickedness in disposition or in conduct - not specifically or exclusively ill-will or malevolence; hence the malice of English law, including all forms of evil purpose. design, intent, or motive. But intent is of two kinds, being either immediate or ulterior, the ulterior intent being commonly distinguished as the motive. The term malice is applied in law to both these forms of intent, and the result is a somewhat puzzling ambiguity which requires careful notice. When we say that an act is done maliciously, we mean one of the two distinct things. We mean either that it is done intentionally, or that it is done with some wrongful motive.""Malice in the legal sense imports (I) the absence of all elements of justification, excuse or recognized mitigation, and (2) the presence of either (a) an actual intent to cause the particular harm which is produced or harm of the same general nature, or (b) the wanton and wilful doing of an act with awareness of a plain and strong likelihood that such harm may result.The Model Penal Code does not use malice because those who formulated the Code had a blind prejudice against the word. This is very regrettable because it represents a useful concept despite some unfortunate language employed at times in the effort to express it."Malice" in the legal acceptance of the word is not confined to personal spite against individuals but consists in a conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another. In its legal sense it means a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse.Malice", in its legal sense, does not necessarily signily ill-will towards a particular individual, but denotes that condition of mind which is manifested by the intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse. Therefore, the law implies malice where one deliberately injures another in an unlawful manner.18. Malice means an indirect wrong motive.19. Malice in its legal sense means, malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or excuse, or for want of reasonable or probable cause."20. Malice, in ordinary common parlance, means ill-will against a person and in legal sense, a wrongful act done intentionally, without just cause or reason. It is a question of motive, intention or state of mind and may be defined as any corrupt or wrong motive or personal spite or ill will.21. Malice in common law or acceptance means ill-will against a person, but in legal sense it means a wrongful act alone intentionally without just cause or excuse. It signifies an intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse or an action determined by an improper motive.22. "MALICE", in common acceptation, means, ill will against a person; but in its legal sense, it means, a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse" Malice in its common acceptation, is a term involving stint intent of the mind and heart, including the will; and has been said to mean a bad mind; ill-will against a person; a wicked or evil state of the mind towards another; an evil intent or wish or design to vex or annoy another; a wilful intent to do a wrongful act; a wish to vex, annoy or injure another person or as intent to do a wrongful act; a condition of the mind which shows a heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief.23. "MALICE" means wickedness of purpose, or a spiteful or malevolent design against another; a purpose to injure another; a design of doing mischief, or any evil design or inclination to do a bad thing, or a reckless disregard to the rights of others, or absence or legal excuse, or any other motive than that of bringing a party tomeaning of the term malice in English law, his been a question of much difficulty and controversy; and those who made through the many disquisitions on the subjects in text-books and judicial opinions are almost tempted to the conclusion that the meaning varies almost infinitely, and that the only sense which the term can safely be predicated not to have in ant given legal context is that which it has in popular language, viz., spite or ill-will. It certainly has different meanings with respect to responsibility for civil wrongs and responsibility for crime; and even with respect to crime it has a different sense according as it is used with reference to murder, libel, or the capacity of an infant to commit crime, expressed by the rule malitia supplet act item." (Ency. of the Laws of England). Ordinarily, the absence of reasonable and probable cause in instituting a proceeding which terminates in favour of the plaintiff, would give rise to the inference of malice.MALICE has been said to mean any wrong or indirect motive but a prosecution is not malicious merely because it is inspired by anger. However, wrong- headed a prosecutor may be, if he honestly thinks that the accused has been guilty of a criminal offence he cannot be initiator of a malicious prosecution.25. MALICE means the presence of some improper and wrongful motive - that is to say an intend to use the legal process in question for some other than its legally appointed and appropriate purpose. It means an improper or indirect motive other than a desire to vindicate public justice or a private right. It need not necessarily be a feeling of enmity, spite or ill-will; it may be due to a desire to obtain a collateral advantage.26. MALICE in fact is malue animus indicating that action against a party was actuated by spite or ill will against him or by indirect or improper motives.27. Malice: hatred: aversion: antipathy: enmity:Repugnance: ill-will: rancour: malevolence:Malignity: malignancy. Hatred is a very general term. Hatred applies properly to persons. It seems not absolutely involuntary. It has its root in passion, and may be checked or stimulated and indulged. Aversion is strong dislike. Aversion is a habitual sentiment, and springs from the natural taste or temperament which repels its opposites, as an indolent man has an aversion to industry, or a humane one to cruelty.28. Antipathy is used of causeless dislike, or at least one of which the cause cannot be defined. It is found upon supposition or instinctive belief, often utterly gratuitous. Enmity is the state of persona! opposition, whether accompanied by strong personal dislike or not; as "a bitter enemy." Repugnance is characteristically employed of acts or courses of action, measures, pursuits, and the like. Ill-will is a settled bias of the disposition. It is very indefinite, and may be of any degree or strength. Rancour is a deep seated and lasting feeling of ill-will. It preys upon the very mind of the subject of it. While enmity may be generous and open, rancour is malignant and private. Malice is that enmity which can abide its opportunity of injuring its object, and pervert the truth or the right, or go out of its way, or shape course of action, to compass its ends. "Malevolence commences with some idea or evil belonging to and connected with the object; and it settles into a permanent hatred of his person and of everything relative to him" - (Gogan) Malignity is cruel malevolence, or innate love of harm for the sake of doing it. It is malice the most energetic, inveterate, and sustained.29. Malice in fact. "Malice in fact" means express malice.MALICE IN FACT OR ACTUAL MALICE, relates to the actual state or condition of the mind of the person who did the act. Malice in fact is where the malice is not established by legal presumption or proof of certain facts, but is to be found from the evidence in the case.30. Malice in fact implies a desire or intention to injure, while malice in law is not necessarily inconsistent with an honest purpose.Malice in law. Malice in law" means implied malice."MALICE IN LAW" simply means a depraved inclination on the part of a person to disregard the rights of others, which intent is manifested by his injurious acts.31. Malice in its legal sense means malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or excuse, or for want of reasonable or probable cause. S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India (AIR 1979 SC 49 , 51).32. MALICIOUS. Done with malice or an evil design; wilful; indulging in malice, harboring ill-will, or enmity malevolent, malignant in heart; committed wantonly, wilfully, or without cause, or done not only wilfully and intentionally, but out of cruelty, hostility of revenge; done in wilful neglect of a known obligation.33. "MALICIOUS" means with a fixed hate, or done with evil intention or motive; not the result of sudden passion.34. Malicious abuse of civil proceedings. In general, a person may utilize any form of legal process without any liability, save liability to pay the costs of proceedings if unsuccessful. But an action lies for initiating civil proceedings. Such as action, presentation of a bankruptcy or winding up petition, an unfounded claim to property, not only unsuccessfully but maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause and resulting in damage to the plaintiff. (Walker)35. Malicious abuse of legal process. A malicious abuse of legal process consists in the malicious misuse or misapplication of process to accomplish a purpose not warranted or commanded by order of Court - the malicious perversion of a regularly issued process, whereby an improper result is secured.36. There is a distinction between a malicious use and a malicious abuse of legal process. An abuse is where the party employs it for some unlawful object - not the purpose which it is intended by the law to effect; in other words, a perversion of it.37. Malicious abuse of process. Wilfully misapplying Court process to obtain object not intended by law. The wilful misuse or misapplication of process to accomplish a purpose not warranted or commanded by the writ. An action for malicious abuse of process lies in the following cases, A malicious petition or proceeding to adjudicate a person an insolvent, to declare a person lunatic or to wind up a company, to make action against legal practitioner under the Legal Practitioners Act, maliciously procuring arrest or attachment in execution of a decree or before judgment, order or injunction or appointment of receiver, arrest of a ship, search of the plaintiffs premises, arrest of a person by police.Malicious abuse of process of CourtMalicious act Bouvier defined a malicious act as "a wrongful act, intentionally done, without cause or excuse."38. A malicious act is one committed in a state of mind which shows a heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischiefa wrongful act intentionally done, without legal justification or excuse.39. A malicious act is an act characterised by a preexisting or an accompanying malicious state of mind.40. Malicious Prosecution Malice. Malice means an improper or indirect motive other than a desire to vindicate public justice or a private right. It need not necessarily be a feeling of enmity, spite or ill-will. It may be due to a desire to obtain a collateral advantage. The principles to be borne in mind in the case of actions for malicious prosecutions are these: Malice is not merely the doing a wrongful act intentionally but it must be established that the defendant was actuated by mains animus, that is to say, by spite of ill-will or any indirect or improper motive. But if the defendant had reasonable or probable cause of launching the criminal prosecution no amount of malice will make him liable for damages. Reasonable and probable cause must be such as would operate on the mind of a discreet and reasonable man; malice and want of reasonable and probable cause. have reference to the state of the defendants mind at the date of the initiation of criminal proceedings and the onus rests on the plaintiff to prove them.OTHER DEFINITIONS OF "MALICIOUSjudicial proceeding instituted by one person against another, from wrongful or improper motive and without probable cause to sustain it.""A prosecution begun in malice, without probable cause to believe that it can succeed and which finally ends in failure.""A prosecution instituted wilfully and purposely, to gain some advantage to the prosecutor or thorough mere wantonness or carelessness, if it be at the same time wrong and unlawful within the knowledge of the actor, and without probable cause.""A prosecution on some charge of crime which is wilful, wanton, or reckless, or against the prosecutors sense of duty and right, or for ends he knows or is bound to know are wrong and against the dictates of public policy.The term "malicious prosecution" imports a causeless as well as an ill-intended prosecution.42. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION" is a prosecution on some charge of crime which is wilful, wanton, or reckless, or against the prosecutors sense of duty and right, or for ends he knows or its bound to know are wrong and against the dictates of public policy.43. In malicious prosecution there are two essential elements, namely, that no probable cause existed for instituting the prosecution or suit complained of, and that such prosecution or suit terminated in some way favorably to the defendant therein.1. The institution of a criminal or civil proceeding for an improper purpose and without probable cause. 2. The cause of action resulting from the institution of such a proceeding. Once a wrongful prosecution has ended in the defendants favor, lie or she may sue for tort damages - Also termed (in the context of civil proceedings) malicious use of process. (Black, 7th Edn.,distinction between an action for malicious prosecution and an action for abuse of process is that a malicious prosecution consists in maliciously causing process to be issued, whereas an abuse of process is the employment of legal process for some purpose other than that which it was intended by the law to effect - the improper use of a regularly issued process. For instance, the initiation of vexatious civil proceedings known to be groundless is not abuse of process, but is governed by substantially the same rules as the malicious prosecution of criminal proceedings." 52 Am. Jur. 2d Malicious Prosecution S. 2, at 187 (1970).The term malice, as used in the expression "malicious prosecution" is not to be considered in the sense of spite or hatred against an individual, but of malus animus, and as denoting that the party is actuated by improper and indirect motives.As a general rule of law, any person is entitled though not always bound to lay before a judicial officer information as to any criminal offence which he has reasonable and probable cause to believe has been committed, with a view to ensuring the arrest, trial, and punishment of the offender. This principle is thus stated in Lightbodys case, 1882, 9 Rettie, 934. "When it comes to the knowledge of anybody that a crime has been committed a duty is laid on that person as a citizen of the country to state to the authorities what he knows respecting the commission of the crime, and if he states, only what he knows and honestly believes he cannot be subjected to an action of damages merely because it turns out that the person as to whom he has given the information is after all not guilty of the crime. In such cases to establish liability the pursuer must show that the informant acted from malice, i.e., not in discharge of his public duty but from an illegitimate motive, and must also prove that the statements were made or the information given without any reasonable grounds of belief, or other information given without probable cause; and Lord SHAND added (p. 940): "He has not only a duty but a right when the cause affects his own property.Most criminal prosecutions are conducted by private citizens in the name of the Crown. This exercise of civic rights constitutes what with reference to the la of libel is termed a privileged occasion: but if the right is abused, the person injured thereby is, in certain events, entitled to a remedy. (See H. Stephen, Malicious Prosecution, 1888; Builen and Leake, Prec. P1., Clerk and Lindsell. Torts, Pollock, Torts; LQR. April 1898; Vin., Abr., tit. "Action on the Case" Ency. of the Laws of England.)45. "MALICIOUS PROSECUTION" means that the proceedings which are complained of were initiated from a malicious spirit, i.e, from an indirect and improper motive, and not in furtherance of justice. [10 CWN 253 (FB)]46. The performance of a duty imposed by law, such as the institution of a prosecution as a necessary condition precedent to a civil action, does not constitute "malice". (Abbott v. Refuge Assurance Co., (1962) 1 QB 432).47. "Malicious prosecution" thus differs from wrongful arrest and detention, in that the onus of proving that the prosecutor did not act honestly or reasonably, lies on the person prosecuted." (per DIPLOCK U in Dailison v. Caffery, (1965) 1 QB 348)). (Stroud, 6th Edn., 2000).48. Malice means and implies spite or ill-will. Incidentally, be it noted that the expression "mala fide" is not meaningless jargon and it has its proper connotation. Malice or mala fides can only be appreciated from the records of the case in the facts of each case. There cannot possibly be any set guidelines in regard to the proof of mala fides. Mala fides, where it is alleged, depends upon its own facts and circumstances. (See Prabodh Sagar v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others. (2000) 5 SCC 630. 49. The legal meaning of malice is "ill will or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action". This is sometimes described as "malice in fact". "Legal malice" or "malice in law" means "something done without lawful excuse". In other words, "it is an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others". (See State of A.P. v. Govardhanlal Pitti (2003) 4 SCC 739 ).50. The word "malice" in common acceptation means and implies "spite" or "ill will". One redeeming feature in the matter of attributing bias or malice is now well settled that mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill will. There must be cogent evidence available on record. In the case of Jones Bros. (Hunstanton) Ltd. v. Stevens (1955) 1 QB 275: (1954) 3 All ER 677 (CA), the Court of Appeal has reliance on the decision of Lumley v. Gye (1853) 2 E&B 216: 22 L.JQB 463 as below: "For this purpose maliciously means no more than knowingly. This was distinctly laid down in Lumley v. Gye (1853) 2 E&B 216: 22 LJQB 463 where Crompton, J. said that it was clear law that a person who wrongfully and maliciously, or, which is the same thing, with notice, interrupts the relation of master and servant by harbouring and keeping the servant after he has quitted his master during his period of service, commits a wrongful act for which he is responsible in law. Malice in law means the doing of a wrongful act intentionally without just cause or excuse: Bromage v. Prosser (1825) 1 C&P 673: 4 B&C 247. Intentionally refers to the doing of the act; it doe not mean that the defendant meant be spiteful, though sometimes, as for instance to rebut a plea of privilage in defamation, malice in fact has to be proved". (See State of Punjab v. U.K. Khann and others (2001) 2 SCC 330 ).51. Malice in law. "Malice in law" is however, quite different. Viscount Haldane described it in Shearer Shields, (1914) AC 808 as: "A person who inflicts an injury upon another person in contravention of the law is not allowed to say that he did so with the innocent mind: he is taken to know the law, and he must act within the law. He may, therefore, be guilty of malice in law, although, so far the state of mind is concerned, he acts ignorantly, and in that sense innocently". Malice in its legal sense means malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or excuse, or fro want of reasonable or probable cause. (See S.R. Venkatarcunan v. Union of India (1979) 2 SCC 491 ).52. Malice-per common law. "Malice" in common law or acceptance means ill will against a person, but in legal sense means a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse. (See Chairman and M.D., B.P.L. Ltd v. S.P. Gururaja and others JT 2003 (Suppl. 2 ) SC 515 and Chairman and MD, BPL Ltd. v. S.F. Gururaja and others (2003) 8 SCC 567 ).53. While it is true that legitimate indignation does not fall within the ambit of malicious act, in almost all legal inquiries, intention, as distinguished from motive is the all important factor. In common parlance, a malicious act has been equated with intentional act without just cause or excuse. (See Jones Bros. (Hunstanton) v. Stevans (1955) 1 QB 275: (1954) 3 All ER 677 (CA)). Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant and others. (2001) 1 SCC 182 ).54. A bare perusal of the averments made in the plaint show that they are extremely vague, lacking in details and after the learned trial judge held that the Board alone was responsible because it was not established that any individual officer was responsible for it and dispute only have been revealed by the high-power enquiry which the court was incompetent to direct, the award for damages is clearly indefensible. The High Courts judgment suffers from various infirmities. Firstly, it has taken a confused view of the matter. It failed to notice that the trial court itself had held "it was highly probable" that the plaintiff was suspended for extraneous reasons. This conclusion is based on surmises and conjectures. This had not been established. As noted above, the High Court noted that the Trial Court itself held that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages for defamation. But while affirming the judgment and decree, it held that the damages granted for harassment must be read as damages for malicious prosecution causing harassment. To say the least, all the conclusions are confusing, contradictory and do not convey any sense. Looked at from any angle the impugned judgment of the High Court is indefensible and is set aside.