Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
MISS RADHA BAI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRYREPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF S
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/04/1995
BENCH:
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)
BENCH:
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)
KULDIP SINGH (J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 1476 1995 SCC (4) 141
JT 1995 (4) 34 1995 SCALE (2)842
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
PARIPOORNAN, J.:
1. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1329 of 1979 of the
High Court of Madras, is the appellant herein. This appeal
is filed against the Judgment of the High Court of Madras
dated 26.10.1983, in pursuant to the special leave granted
by this Court on 13.1.1986 in S.L.P.(C) No. 3643 of 1984.
There are three respondents in this appeal. They are: The
Union Territory of Pondicherry represented by its Chief
Secretary, The Union of India represented by Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, and Sri D. Ramachandran, former
Home Minister of Pondicherry.
2. The relevant facts which gave rise to this appeal may
be stated. The date of birth of the appellant is 25.8.1934.
She was appointed as a Child Welfare Organiser under the
Pondicherry State Social Welfare Advisory Board on
21.11.1958. The service of the employees of the Board was
merged with the Government service. The employees of the
Advisory Board became Government employees. On 11. 12.1962
the appellant was appointed as Social Education Organiser in
the Development Department, Government of Pondicherry. In
1973, the appellant was Assistant Director of the Social
Welfare Department. At that time, the third respondent was
the Minister for Social Welfare in the Government of
Pondicherry. In that year a protective and shelter home for
women arrested under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act
was started at Reddiarpalayam by the Social Welfare
Doctorate. It is the appellant’s case, that in 1973, she
received a report that the above institution was being
misused by the third respondent herein with the connivance
of the Superintendent, for illegal and
38
immoral purposes. The appellant reprimanded the
Superintendent. This infuriated the third respondent and
other officers who apprehended that their misdeeds will be
exposed. They began teasing the appellant. The appellant
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
was transferred from Pondicherry to Karaikkal. On an en-
quiry by the Inspector-General of Police on the orders of
Lt. Governor conducted in 1976, the Secretary, Local
Administration Department was transferred in January, 1977.
In 1977, the third respondent again became the Home
Minister. He continued to use the women’s institutions as
before for his immoral activities with the help of some
officials. The appellant’s presence was an Irritation to
the third respondent and other officials. In September,
1977, some false criminal charges were leveled against the
appellant by the said officials and attempts to commit her
to prison were made on the ground that she was a lunatic.
She demanded an enquiry in the matter. Therefore, she was
suspended from service with effect from October 14, 1977.
Thereafter, the appellant resorted to fast, and on the
assurances of the Chief Minister and the Union Minister for
Tourism that remedial action will be taken, she gave up the
fast. On 10.7.1978, the appellant submitted a
representation to the Governor of Tamil Nadu Sri Prabhudas
Patwari who had taken over the administration of Pondicherry
by then. In her representation, she alleged attempts made
to molest her and other misdeeds of officials and prayed for
intervention to set right the matters. A detailed petition
was also sent later. On 22.7.1978, the Governor of
Pondicherry, in his capacity as Administrator of Pondicherry
Administration, directed that an enquiry be held into the
allegations contained in the complaint filed before him.
The authorities failed to give effect to this order.
Thereupon the appellant moved the High Court of Madras in
Writ Petition No. 1329 of 1979 and prayed for issue of a
writ of mandamus to implement the orders passed by the
Governor of Tamil Nadu and the Administrator of the Union
Territory of Pondicherry dated 22.7.1978, and for other
reliefs. The High Court of Madras by its Judgment dated
26.9.1983 held that the order dated 22.7.1978 is incomplete
and in-executable and denied relief to the appellant. It is
thereafter, the appellant moved this Court by S.L.P.(C)
No.3643 of 1984, and obtained leave by order dated
13.1.1986. This Court ordered expeditious hearing of the
appeal. Thereafter, the appeal came up for hearing on a few
occasions and finally on 26.7.1994, this Court passed the
following order:
"Miss Radha Bai, the appellant, was working as
Assistant Director, local Administration
Department, Govt. of Pondicherry. She made
a
written complaint before the Governor of
Pondicherry wherein it was alleged that the
Minister in-charge and other officers, named
therein, were misusing the Social Welfare
Department and they attempted to molest the
appellant. The Governor in his capacity as
the Administrator of Pondicherry
Administration by his order dated July 22,
1978 directed that an enquiry be held into the
allegation contained in the complaint filed
before him by Radha Bai. The operative part
of the order was as under:
‘proceedings of the Governor of Tamil Nadu
And
Administrator of the Union Territory of
Pondicherry.
39
Dated: 22nd July, 1978.
Sub:Representation from Miss N. Radha Bai,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
Assistant Director, Local Administration
Department.
After giving full consideration to the
representation of Miss N. Radha Bai, Assistant
Director, Local Administration Department,
Pondicherry, and after going through the
comments of the Chief Secretary to the
Government of Pondicherry presented to me
today at 12 Noon, 1 feel that the matter
regarding allegations against Shri D.
Ramachandran, Shri T.T. Joseph and Shri S.V.
Ranganathan about the endeavours to molest the
applicant need independent enquiry in the
interests of justice and in order to keep up
the prestige of the Administration and par-
ticularly women members of the staff. 1 order
that a Judicial Officer of the rank of
District Judge be appointed to conduct the
enquiry only for the above points.’
The order of the Governor, quoted above, was
not complied with by the Administration and no
enquiry was held. Radha Bai filed a writ
petition under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India before the Madras High
Court seeking a direction to the Pondicherry
Administration to hold an enquiry as directed
by the Governor. The writ petition was dis-
missed by the High Court. This appeal by way
of special leave is against the judgment of
the High Court.
We have heard learned counsel for- the
parties. We are of the view that the High
Court fell into patent error in dismissing the
writ petition. Instead of doing substantial
justice in the case the High Court declined to
interfere on the reasoning which was wholly
irrelevant and against law. We are of the vie
w
that the order passed by the Governor in his
capacity as the Administrator of Pondicherry
Government was valid and the Administration
was bound by the same. We direct the
Pondicherry Administration through its Chief
Secretary to request the District Judge
Pondicherry to hold an enquiry into the
complaint made by the appellant as ordered on
July 22, 1978 by the then Governor. This
shall be done by the Chief Secretary within
two weeks of the receipt of this order. The
District Judge shall give opportunity to Miss
Radha bai and the persons named in the
complaint to adduce evidence oral as well as
documentary in support of their respective
contentions. The District Judge shall
complete the enquiry within three months of
the receipt of the request to him from the
Chief Secretary. The enquiry report be sent
to the Chief Secretary, Union Territory of
Pondicherry and a copy of the same be sent to
this Court.
The appeal to be listed for further directions
on 6.12.1994.
Registry to send the copy of this order to the
Chief Secretary and District Judge,
Pondicherry before 9.8.94. "
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
3.The enquiry by the District Judge, Pondicherry,
unfortunately took some time and this Court granted
extension of time for submitting the report. There is only
one District Judge in Pondicherry. He has submitted a
report containing 40 pages (56 paragraphs). In the said
report, the deposition of 19 witnesses (PW1 - PW 19) and the
documents (Ext. P1- Ext.P12) have been adverted to. The
finding of the District Judge is to the effect that the
allegations of the appellant against the third respondent
and two others "are not proved by corroboration of the
evidence of the complainant or her documents." In more
40
places than one, after adverting to the evidence of PW-1 (to
PW-19) (appellant and others) the learned District Judge has
stated that there is no corroboration for the evidence so
given. The learned District Judge failed to bear in mind
the long lapse of time after the incident, in appreciating
the evidence in the case.
4.We heard Sri K. Sukumaran, Senior Counsel who appeared for
the appellant, Sri A.S. Nambiar, Senior Counsel who appeared
for the first respondent, and also the counsel for the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Written submissions have also been
submitted by counsel for the appellant and counsel for
respondent Nos. 1 & 3. We perused the same.
5.In the earlier order passed by this Court on 26.7.1994,
this Court found that the High Court failed to do
substantial justice in this case and declined to interfere
in the matter on the basis of irrelevant and faulty
reasoning and so the Judgment is erroneous in law. We have
no doubt that it is so. In the light of the above, one of
the main prayers of the appellant in the writ petition to
give effect to the order passed by the Governor of Tamil
Nadu and the Administrator of Union Territory of Pondicherry
dated 22.7.1978 was given effect to by this Court by order
dated 26.7.1994 and the District Judge was directed to
conduct the enquiry. We are sorry to note that the Enquiry
Report submitted by the District Judge is unhelpful, infirm
and is unsustainable. As we indicated earlier the
substantial reasoning and conclusion of the learned District
Judge is to the effect that the evidence (statements) of the
appellant are not corroborated by other material. It is
rather surprising that the law laid down by this Court in a
series of decisions from 1952 as to whether there is any
need to insist upon corroboration to the testimony of
prosecutrix in sexual offence, has been completely ignored
by the District Judge in submitting his report. We may
mention only two cases as illustrative of the principle to
be borne in mind in appreciating the testimony of the
victims of sexual offences. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai
Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 (3) SCC 217, at p.226,
this Court stated the law thus:
"On principle the evidence of a victim of
sexual assault stands on par with evidence of
an injured witness. Just as a witness who has
sustained an injury (which is not shown or
believed to be self inflicted) is the best
witness in the sense that she is least Rely to
exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a
victim of a sex offence is entitled to great
weight, absence of corroboration
notwithstanding............ if the evidence of
the victim does not suffer from any basic
infirmity, and the ’probabilities factor’ does
not render it unworthy of credence, as a
general rule, there is no reason to insist on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
corroboration."
Again in State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand
Jain etc. 1990 (1) SCC 550, at p.559, this Court laid down
the law thus:
"...if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full
understanding the Court is entitled to base a
conviction on her evidence unless the same is
shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If
the totality of the circumstances appearing on
the record of the case disclosed that the
prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to
falsely involve the person charged, the Court
should ordinarily have no hesitation in
accepting her evidence. We have, therefore ,
no doubt in our minds that ordinarily the
evidence of a prosecutrix who does not lack
under-
41
standing must be accepted. The degree of
proof required must not be higher is expected
of an injured witness......
Ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix must
carry the same weight as is attached to an
injured person who is a victim of violence,
unless there are special circumstances which
call for greater caution, in which case it
would be safe to act on her testimony if there
is independent evidence lending assurance to
her accusation. "
(emphasis supplied)
6. In the light of the above decisions of this Court the
report submitted by the District Judge, Pondicherry in
pursuance of the order passed by this Court is unacceptable
and we reject the same.
7. It is unfortunate that an order passed by the
Administrator of Pondicherry on 22.7.1978, nearly 17 years
ago, was not given effect to by the Administration and even
when the appellant approached the High Court for
implementing the said order, it was opposed and relief was
denied to her, by Court. No useful purpose will be served
by ordering an enquiry again at this distance of time.
Reading the affidavits filed by the appellant, her
statements of allegations, the various documents and also
the other relevant papers filed in the case, we have no
doubt in our mind, that something, as stated by the
appellant, should have happened in a broad sense though the
precise details relating thereto have not come to light.
The entire episode is really unfortunate and we express our
anguish in the matter. It also appears that all was not
well with regard to the manner and method of the running of
the institution started at Reddiarpalayam by the Social
Welfare Directorate and the steps taken in that regard by
the appellant to set right the matter seems to have provoked
"the powers that be". It is evident that there was inaction
and attempt to cover up the entire episode. The fact that
the high constitutional dignitary, Governor of Tamil Nadu,
who was the Administrator of Pondicherry, felt that a prima
facie case is disclosed and ordered that the allegations
regarding the endeavour to molest the appellant need
independent enquiry in the interest of justice cannot be and
should not have been ignored. The Administration failed in
its duty to give effect to the said order within a
reasonable time. On the other hand, the attempt was to "
shelve" the matter, by putting forward untenable pleas. A
responsible statutory authority or administration, owes a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
duty to the public, to discharge its functions reasonably,
honestly and bonafide, without driving the aggrieved persons
from pillar to post, and should there be any non-excusable
lapse on this score, the concerned authority or
administration, should be held responsible for the loss or
damage accruing thereby to the aggrieved persons. Even the
High Court on an erroneous view declined relief to the
appellant. It cannot be gain said that the modesty of a
woman is very precious to her from all points of view and
when attempts were made to molest her and also to thwart the
genuine attempts made by her to set right the undesirable
happenings in the shelter home for women, any person placed
in the position of the appellant will certainly feel annoyed
and ashamed. There is every reason for the appellant to
feel greatly humiliated. There is bound to be moral
indignation or resentment. Even a judicial enquiry, ordered
by the highest constitutional functionary in the State to
investigate the matter, was rendered futile by the concerned
officials and
42
for a period of 17 years no redress or remedy has been
rendered to the appellant. This is sad indeed! The
appellant entered service in 1958. Due to estranged rela-
tionship, events one after another followed and eventually
the appellant was removed from service on 30.9.1981 and she
was driven from pillar to post to seek redress for the wrong
done to her. On the day when she was removed from service
she had 23 years of qualifying service. She was entitled to
pension. Under Rule 48-B of the Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972 weightage of a period not exceeding 5
years can be added to the actual service rendered by a civil
servant as period of grace, if the total qualifying service
does not exceed 33 years and if it does not take the civil
servant beyond the date of superannuation. In the normal
course the appellant would have attained superannuation only
on 25.8.1992, her date of birth being 25.8.1934. There are
materials available in the records to show that the
appellant was a highly competent, hard working, sincere and
devoted official. She has been referred to as an asset to
the department. But for the estranged relationship and the
acrimonious battle, she would have normally served the State
till superannuation. There was no impediment therefore.
Considering the totality of the circumstances and the non-
excusable lapses of the administration and in doing complete
justice in the matter, we are of the view that it should be
declared that the appellant was compulsorily retired on at
training the age of superannuation an should be afforded
pension and all other consequential and incidental benefits,
of the basis that she was compulsorily retire from service
on 25.8.1992. She would be entitled to pension and other
retirement benefits. Besides, the appellant should be
afforded relief by award of a lump-sum compensation for the
loss of her reputation and honour and the agony she had to
suffer in the long battle, which we fix at Rs. 3 lacs,
payable jointly by respondents 1 and 3, within one month
from today. We order accordingly.
8. The appeal shall stand disposed of as above with no
order as to costs.
45