S.M.RAMANUJAM vs R.DAMODARAN

BRIEF facts of the case are as under : The complainant was a Sub-Inspector of Police and he was compulsorily retired from service in the year 1982 as a measure of punishment on the basis of a disciplinary enquiry held against him. An appeal preferred by him to the Appellate Authority was dismissed. He filed a Writ Petition which was also dismissed by the Madras High Court. Thereafter, in 1990 he filed an Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal which allowed his application on two grounds.

AGAINST the said order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the Government of Tamil Nadu filed an appeal before the Supreme Court on the ground inter alia that the Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was not maintainable after the Writ Petition filed by the complainant was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the contention of the Government of Tamil Nadu and allowed the appeal filed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. In his complaint, the complainant has alleged that had his case been carefully handled by the opposite party Advocate before the Supreme Court, he (the complainant) would not have lost his case. According to him, when the appeal filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu was pending before the Supreme Court, he requested the opposite party to file a Caveat before the Supreme Court, but the opposite party failed to do so. Hence, he lost his case before the Supreme Court. On this ground, he has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and has claimed that the opposite party should pay to him 50% of a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- which, he claims, is due to him from the Government of Tamil Nadu, and 50% of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - being the expenses incurred by him in conducting the proceedings. Claiming these reliefs he has filed this complaint.

The opposite party has resisted the claim of the complainant. Version has been filed. No exhibit has been marked on the side of the opposite party.

WE have carefully perused the papers placed before us. The complainant has appeared in person and has argued his case. None appeared for the opposite party. There is no evidence for the complainant''s claim that he had engaged the opposite party to appear before the Supreme Court on his behalf.

IN the version filed, the opposite party has stated that the papers were handed over to him by one Santhanakrishnan, Advocate, reported to be a relative of the complainant. The further case of the opposite party is that he conducted the case before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and got an order favourable to the complainant. When a Special Leave Petition was filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu before the Supreme Court against the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, he was not engaged to appear before the Supreme Court. The complainant did not take any step to file a Caveat. The opposite party has added that he was not paid any money for conducting the case before the Supreme Court and the complainant himself went to New Delhi to engage an Advocate to conduct the case. He has contended that he should not be blamed for he latches on the part of the complainant throughout. He has added that his duty as an Advocate ended with the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and he had nothing to do with the proceedings before the Supreme Court in the matter. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the complainant himself has stated that he went to Delhi to engage an Advocate to conduct his case before the Supreme Court. As stated above, there is no evidence to substantiate the claim of the complainant that he paid money to the opposite party to conduct his case before the Supreme Court. Further, in the light of the Supreme Court''s order dated 9.12.1994 in the case of the complainant (Civil Appeal No. 9288 of 1994 {arising out of SLP(C) No. 16469 of 1994}), there is no substance in the contention of the complainant that he lost his case before the Supreme Court just because Caveat was not filed. In the light of the discussion above, the complaint is devoid of merit.

IN the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Complaint dismissed.