Madrasdated High Court · 2025

S.A.No.560 of 2023JUDGMENTThis Second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 30.08.2022 in A.S.No.8 of 2019 on the file of Additional District Court, (Fast Track Court) Arani by the defendant herein.2. The parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking made before the Trial Court.3. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had been working as Assistant Elementary Education Officer, at Anakavoor, Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. He was discharging his duties satisfactorily. The defendant was working as Section Clerk and then as Junior Assistant at Anakavoor, Cheyyar Taluk under the control of plaintiff. In the course of discharge of defendant’s duties, the defendant had misappropriated the funds allotted for school uniform and other benefits allotted to school students.3.1 It was found out by the Local Fund Audit party and it was directed in the Audit Report that a sum of Rs.92,000/- was Page 2 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.560 of 2023misappropriated by the defendant. The same has to be recovered from the defendant. The said amount has to be adjusted in the Government account. Thereafter, the defendant was promoted as Desk Superintendent of Melmalayanoor, Gingee Taluk. When the plaintiff was on casual leave, the defendant was relieved from the post of Junior Assistant at Anakavoor without getting his Service Register.3.2. The plaintiff forwarded the Service Register of defendant to the District Elementary Education Officer with endorsement of non-payment of Rs.92,000/- as directed by the Audit Party. Bearing this in mind, the defendant, in order to bring down the reputation of the plaintiff, sent defamatory statements to the plaintiff's higher officials defaming the plaintiff. The plaintiff sent a legal notice on 30.05.2004 to the defendant narrating the defamatory statements made by the defendant. The defendant sent untenable reply notice, again, marking copies to the plaintiff's higher officials. Despite the opportunities given to the defendant, he did not seek apology from the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff laid the suit for damages for having defamed him.4. The defendant per contra would inter alia contend that the allegations with regard to misappropriation of Rs.92,000/- by the Page 3 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.560 of 2023defendant is false. It is mentioned in the Audit Report to recover the amount from the defendant and it is not mentioned as misappropriated. The defendant sent a complaint and it is not a defamatory statement. The allegations that the defendant’s aim is to defame the plaintiff is also incorrect. The plaintiff has acted against the interest of the defendant. More so, a criminal proceedings in STC.No.271 of 2004 was initiated by the plaintiff against the defendant before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Cheyyar and the same was pending.5. Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed the relevant issues. To substantiate the plaint details, on the plaintiff's side, two witnesses were examined and four documents were marked. Ex.A1 is the Local Fund Audit Report dated 08.09.1999. Ex.A2 is the letter addressed by the defendant to the District Primary Education Officer, Tiruvannamalai. On the side of the defendant Kandasamy, he has examined himself as D.W.1 and two documents have been marked.6. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both sides, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.Page 4 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.560 of 20237. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the District Court, Tiruvannamalai District in A.S.No.66 of 2018. (It was later transferred to Additional District Court, Arani/ A.S.No.8 of 2019).8. The First Appellate Court upon consideration of case records and the argument details has concluded that in order to protect the plaintiff's right of fame, he has filed the suit and concluded that the plaintiff is entitled for damages of Rs.2,00,000/- payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.9. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:-i) Whether the First Appellate Court has erred in law that the plaintiff is entitled for damages from the defendant for the alleged defamatory statement?ii) Whether the details found in the letter amounts to defamatory is the core issue?10. The defendant was working under the control of the plaintiff and had addressed Ex.A2 - Letter to the Tamil Nadu Primary Education and District Education Officer, Villupuram with a copy to three of their Page 5 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.560 of 2023higher officials. These details are deducible from the perusal of Ex.A2 (letter sent by the defendant to the District Primary Education Officer, Tiruvannamalai).11. The amount of Rs.92,000/- was ordered to be recovered from the defendant by the Audit Party is also not in dispute. The said details have been admitted by the defendant in the written statement itself.12. To this effect, the written statement reads that “ the amount has to be personally recovered from the defendant and to be adjusted in the Government account”.13. P.W.1 ( plaintiff) has filed proof affidavit would state that Ex.A2 contains defamatory details, by addressing him officially and to higher official as mentioned supra has brought down his reputation and it has caused mental agony to him. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.14. Defamation means:-It is a mixed concept partly objected and partly subjected, it means causing mental suffering to the person defamed. Page 6 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.560 of 2023The plaintiff's case is that the defendant has sent an official letter to him thereby defaming him without any lawfulness justification. The right to reputation also comes under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The expression lies influence, indication of one's own reputation it is what a person is supposed to be, in what people says he is; it means what is generally the state or believed about the person's or things' character”.15. In order to have a better understanding, the relevant portion of Ex.A2 – letter addressed by the defendant to the plaintiff and the plaintiff's higher officials are extracted hereunder :- NkYk; ,t;nthd;wpaj;jpYs;s Mrphpah;fs;“ vtNuDk; NtW khtl;lj;jpw;F my;yJ NtW x;dwpaj;jpw;F khWjypy; nrd;wth;fsplk; gzptpLtpg;G Miz> ,Wjp Cjpar;rhd;W> kw;Wk; gzpg;gjpNtL Mfpaitfis Neubahf ifapy; nfhLj;J mDg;Gtjw;F mYtyf nryTf;F vd;W ngha;ahf $wp ifêl;L njhifahf &.1000/- Kjy; &.1500/- tiu fz;fhzpg;ghsh; jpUkjp.f.ky;ypfh> vd;gth; thq;fpAs;shh; vd;gijAk;> ,jw;F jufuhf mYtyfj;jpy; gzpahw;Wk; gapyhsh; xUth; nray;gLfpwhh; vd;gijAk;> jhq;fs; ,jd; kPJ tphpthd tprhuiz Nkw;nfhz;lhy; cz;ik njhpatUk; vd;gijg; gzpTld; njhptpj;Jf; nfhs;fpNwd;. Xt;nthU Mz;Lk; fye;jha;tpy; fye;J nfhz;L khWjy; ngWk; Mrphpah;fsplKk; xU Fwpg;gpl;l njhif &.500/- f;F Fiwahky; ngw;Wf; nfhz;L gzptpLtpg;G nra;tJ tof;fkhf mdf;fhëh; Page 7 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.560 of 2023cjtpj; njhlf;f fy;tp mYtyh; mYtyfj;jpy; eilngw;W tUfpwJ vd;gijg; gzpTld; njhptpj;Jf; nfhs;fpNwd;.”16. It is utmost relevant to note in a democratic country everybody has right to criticize and also to dissent. However, one's right under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute subject to restrictions as he cannot defame another person as it would offend the victims' Fundamental Right to Reputation which is an exclusive right adumbrated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to Reputation is also a dimension of the right of life, it comes under Article 21 of Constitution of India.17. The plaintiff has examined himself and the relevant document is Ex.A2- letter addressed by the defendant to the plaintiff herein dated 14.04.2004. Upon analysis of entire evidence, it is discernible that the defendant was transferred to Melmalayanoor, Anakavoor.18. The defendant would claim that he sent the copies of Ex.A2- Letter to the higher officials as his complaint and he did not have intention to defame the plaintiff. The said letter reveals that the defendant had served under the plaintiff in the cadre of Assistant. A thorough perusal of Ex.A2 explicates that he has explained about various incidents and has concluded that as he did not resort to illegal Page 8 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.560 of 2023activities in the office in order to wreck vengence his Service Register was sent belatedly.19. The plaintiff's case is that by writing a letter to the plaintiff in his officials capacity and by sending the copies of Ex.A2 – Letter to Higher officials, thereby his reputation is brought down by the defendant.20. If really the defendant is interested in clean administration, he could have brought to the notice of the plaintiff at the earliest. He has explained some omissions and commissions in respect of the letter sent to the higher officials. Once the letter Ex.A2 is received at the hands of the plaintiff, the content of Ex.A2 naturally would have been discussed by the staff, so also by the Office of plaintiff's higher officials.21. Having received the Service Register belatedly from the office of the plaintiff with endorsement regarding the recovery of Rs.92,000/- from the defendant, the defendant has sent Ex.A2 to the plaintiff and marked the copies of the said letter to the “higher Officials in Ex.A1/Audit Report. The relevant portion of the said Audit Report – Ex.A1 with regard to the defendant and recovery details is extracted hereunder :-Page 9 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.560 of 2023,ytr rPUilfs; khzth;fSf;F 96-95k; Mz;by; 5/95> 6/95> khjq;fspYk; 96-97k; Mz;by; 3/96> 4/96> khjq;fspYk; 97-98k; Mz;by; 7/97> 8/97> khjj;jpYk; toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.,ytr rPUilfs; toq;fpaij jzpf;if nra;jNghJ ,ytr rPUilfs; fzf;fpy; FiwT fhzg;gl;lJ. mjd; tptuk; tUkhW:Mz;LMuk;g ,Ug;GTuTnkhj;jk; toq;fpaJ,Uf;f Ntz;ba,Ug;GGjpNtL gb,Ug;G&&.FiwT96-95k; -1330513305110702235175206096-973/96 y; toq;fpaJ175159061598111645433625001836[{iy> Mf];l; 97y; toq;fpaJnkhj;jk;3896,Ug;G Fiwthf fhzg;gl;l 3896 rPUilfSf;fhd fpuaj;ij ,jw;F nghWg;ghd ,Ug;G nghUg;ghsuhf jpU.fe;jrhkp cjtpahshplkpUe;J t#y; nra;J muR epjpapy; nrYj;JkhW Nfl;Lf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.22. Whenever recovery is ordered against particular staff, it is the usual procedure that the relevant details will be entered in the Service Register of particular person and also the details would find place in the last pay drawn particulars, so that it will enable the Office to which he is attached to recover the amount as ordered.Page 10 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.560 of 202323. In order to substantiate the plaint details, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and the relevant Audit Report has been marked and it is spoken out by P.W.2- K.Velu. Ex.A2 is the letter addressed by the defendant to the plaintiff in his official capacity. The Trial Court has concluded that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case and dismissed the suit, whereas, the First Appellate Court after detailed discussions has observed that the plaintiff has proved the case with cogent and satisfactory evidence and defendant himself admitted so many facts in respect of Ex.A2. 24. It is very relevant to note that at the relevant point of time, plaintiff was serving an Education Officer for 90 Elementary Schools and 300 Teachers and many staffs had been working in the said schools. Writing a letter Ex.A2 has wrongly brought down the reputation of the plaintiff among the teachers and staffs as mentioned supra. The amount claimed as damages is reasonable and it is not excessive. Sending copies to the higher officials of the plaintiff has brought down the reputation of plaintiff in the minds of his officials is certainly acceptable and reasonable. Page 11 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.560 of 202325. Therefore, this Court does not find any good reason to disturb the findings of the First Appellate Court. This Court also does not find any perversity or infirmity in the findings of the First Appellate Court. The substantial questions of law is answered in favour of the plaintiff.26. Based on the aforestated observations and discussions, this Second Appeal stands dismissed. Sequel to this, the Judgment and Decree dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Additional District Court, Arani in A.S.No.8 of 2019 stands confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.25.07.2025Index : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation : Yes/NokkdTo1. The Additional District Court, Arani.2. The Subordinate Court, Cheyyar.Page 12 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.560 of 2023R.KALAIMATHI, J.,kkdS.A.No.560 of 202325.07.2025Page 13 of 13