Under Indian administrative law, when a public servant has, by mala fides or oppression in the discharge of official duty, caused injustice to a common man, the Supreme Court in *Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, 1994 1 SCC 245* held that:

1. In **Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, 1994 1 SCC 245**, the Supreme Court observed: 'where public servant by **malafide**, **oppressive and capricious acts** in discharging official duty causes injustice, harassment and agony to common man and renders the State or its instrumentality liable to pay damages to the person aggrieved from public fund, the **State or its instrumentality is duly bound to recover the amount of compensation so paid from the public servant concerned**.' 2. So the State pays the citizen first, and is then **bound to recover from the erring public servant**. The principle protects the citizen while transferring the financial burden to the actual wrongdoer. 3. Options B, C and D distort this two-step mechanism — they either deny the citizen a remedy against the State or block recovery from the servant. 4. The principle dovetails with *Rudal Shah*, *Bhim Singh* and *Saheli* — the State is the deep pocket of first resort, but the cost should fall on the abuser within the State. _Source: ICSI CS Executive — Lesson 5, 'Damages — Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta', p. 131._