2009 PLP 1914 (YLR)

ZAFAR, AHMED KHAN SHERWANI, J.

This is a suit for declaration and damages filed by a retired Head Master against the officers of Education Department including Secretary Education and other senior officers and Accountant General Sindh, Karachi, wherein he pleaded that he was serving as Head Master in Sitara-e-Haidri Government Boys Secondary School, 11-D, new Karachi, since 24-2-1975. He was transferred from there on 2-9-1991 but verbally he was asked not to leave the charge. However on 21-9-1991 a Team of three officers mentioned in the plaint issued a letter to him to handover the charge immediately and report to District Education Officer, South (Male). The plaintiff complied with the order. Later on he was transferred to different school mentioned in the plaint but the concerned Head Masters refused to hand over the charge to him and therefore, he remained attending the office of District Education Officer (DEO) South. During this period he remained working as Drawing' and Disbursing Officer (DDO) for Sitara-e-Haidri Government Boys Secondary School, 11-D, New Karachi, which charge was also taken over later on, on the complaint of one Rehmatullah Rehmat Head Master of the School and handed over to the defendant No.1 Abdul Rehman Khan who was also appointed as DDO in respect of another School. The defendant No.1 later on contacted United Bank's Manager, Muslim Town Branch, to operate accounts of the plaintiff as DDO without his consent and wrote different letters to the said Manager to close down the said account and to open three new accounts under the directions of DEO (Secondary) vide letter, dated 23-1-1993. However the plaintiff was again transferred as Head Master of Sitara -e-Haidri Government Boys Secondary School, 11-D, new Karachi, vide order, dated 13-9-1995 from where he retired on 31-1-1998. It was alleged that on account of the acts of the defendant No.1 he remained without salary for the period of 32 months 24 days w.e.f. 1-1-1993 to 24-9-1995 and had to suffer financial stress and strain, therefore, he has brought this suit for declaration that the defendant No.1 created such circumstances on account of which he suffered mental torture as such, he is entitled for the damages against the defendants Nos.1, 6, 7 and 8 in the sum of Rs.10,00,000 from each of them. The defendant No.1 filed his written statement denying all the allegations against him and pleaded that the suit is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable for want of cause of action and for misjoinder of the parties. The defendants Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 have also filed their written statements/comments denying the claim of the plaintiff. Out of the pleading following issues were 'settled: (1) Whether on account of letters and correspondence signed and issued by defendant being libelous matters, plaintiff sustained damages special and general? (2) Whether defendants Nos.1, 6, 7 and 8 exercised their power and jurisdiction without authority in a colourable manner? (3) Whether on account of illegal, unauthorized exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the defendants Nos.1, 6, 7 and 8 but defendants Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 11 acted in a manner within their powers/domain? (4)" Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief claimed? (5) What should the decree be? On the above issues the plaintiff filed his Affidavit-in-Evidence along with necessary documents including transfers and posting orders, and different correspondence. In his support he examined Syed Rasheed Ahmed, Sirajuddin, Khayal and Zaheeruddin. Whereas, the defendant Abdul Rehman filed his Affidavit-in-Evidence along with necessary documents. No witness was examined by other defendants. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and for the defendants Nos.l and 8 perused the record. The learned advocates have also filed their written arguments along photocopies of the case-law in support of, their respective contentions. Issues Nos. 1 to

4. All the above issues are common in nature and required to be discussed together. The burden of proof of these issues was on the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff against the defendants Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 8 was that they acted in such mala fide intention which prompted the. defendants Nos. 2, 3, 5, 9, 10 and 11 to pass illegal orders against him on account of which his salary for about 33 months was stopped and his image and reputation was tarnished amongst common people. To prove these issues the plaintiff has examined himself and also three witnesses named above but the entire evidence on record does not show any such act of the defendants Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 8 which can be labelled as mala fide and sufficient to make harassment to the plaintiff on account of stoppage of his salary for the above mentioned period. If the plaintiff intends to obtain a decree for damage against these defendants then he is to prove through tangible evidence firstly that the acts of these defendants were mala fide and collusive in order to cause loss of reputation or fiscal loss, secondly on account of these acts such damage was actually sustained by the plaintiff and therefore, he requires equitable redressal. The plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence to prove the same. The entire evidence produced by him is with regard to the administrative actions in respect of transfer, posting from one school to another or in respect of his power to act as DDO. No evidence has been brought on record by him that on account of stoppage of his salary his image was tarnished amongst the general public. Even his three witnesses produced by him are silent on that point. It may be appreciated that as per letter of the District Education Officer (Secondary) District Central (Male) Karachi, dated 28-10-1996, Exh.4/4L, the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 was on account of their differences to act as DDO, in respect of Sitara-e-Haidri, Govt. Boys Secondary School, 11-D, New Karachi over closing and opening' balance of the cash book. However there is nothing on record that the salary for the above mentioned period was stopped on account of any act of these defendants for which the plaintiff is entitled for the damages. Therefore, these issues are decided in negative. Issue No.5 Due to the findings on Issues Nos. 1 to 4, the suit is dismissed with costs. H.B.T/M-115/K Suit dismissed.