Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
% Judgment Reserved On: 22 March, 2011
th
Judgment Delivered On: 24 March, 2011
+ W.P.(C) No.8439/2010
M.MEENA KUMARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Rekha Palli, Advocate with
Ms.Punam Singh and Ms.Amrita
Prakash, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Neeraj Choudhary, CGSC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. The petitioner, who we are informed has Post-
Graduate Degree in Mathematics followed by a Masters
Degree in Business Administration appeared at the
competitive examination conducted by the Staff Selection
Commission for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors under the
Central Para-Military Forces and successfully cleared the
selection. She was allocated to the Central Industrial Security
Force on 23.12.2006 and prior thereto she had served in
Central Reserve Police Force as an Assistant Sub-Inspector
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 1 of 13
from 16.2.2001 to 19.12.2006.
2. Joining CISF the petitioner was posted at Bangaluru
on 26.4.2008 and was staying at the Lady‟s Hostel of which
Insp.Indu M.Kumar was the In-charge.
3. As per the petitioner Insp.Indu M.Kumar used to
allow her husband to stay with her at the Lady‟s Hostel which
was contrary to the rules and when the Commandant learnt
about the same and made discreet inquiries, the petitioner
told the truth to the Commandant and unfortunately for her,
Insp.Indu M.Kumar learnt about the same and hence became
vindictive towards her. The Company Havaldar Major Padma
Bane acted under the dictates of Insp.Indu M.Kumar and
spread a canard that petitioner used to indulge in excessive
smoking and drinking in the Lady‟s Hostel room allotted to her
and as a result thereof the petitioner was under a mental
stress. She wrote a letter on 19.1.2009 to the Commandant
informing that due to rumours being spread about her
character, she was extremely disturbed. She requested the
Commandant to investigate the rumours spread about her.
She highlighted that she was extremely depressed on her
character being brazenly talked about. The respondents have
not disputed said letter being received by the Commandant.
The petitioner was not even given a hearing by the
Commandant and thus she wrote another letter dated
31.1.2009 to the Commandant in which she requested that the
Commandant should urgently look into the matter. She sought
5 days‟ earned leave with permission to meet the DIG at
Chennai. The respondents admit receipt of the said letter as
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 2 of 13
also the fact that no action was taken thereon. On 26.2.2009
the petitioner submitted another letter to the Commandant
with an urgent request to spare some time for a personal
interview with her. Unfortunately, the Commandant ignored
the said letter, receipt whereof has not been denied by the
respondents.
4. On 12.3.2009 the Commandant issued a written
warning to the petitioner informing that after he had received
petitioner‟s letter dated 19.1.2009 he conducted a preliminary
inquiry through the Assistant Commandant B.S.Dongo and
Lady Insp.V.D.Mini who have reported that petitioner‟s
complaint against Insp.Indu M.Kumar was baseless and that
the room-mates and other inmates of the Lady‟s hostel have
reported that petitioner was found smoking cigarettes in the
balcony of her room and had felt alcohol like smell coming
from the petitioner‟s room. The petitioner was warned that
since the Lady‟s barrack was a public place she was supposed
to be careful and should not smoke or drink in the barrack.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not
associated at the preliminary inquiry supposedly conducted.
6. The very next day i.e. on 13.3.2009 the petitioner
requested to be supplied with the statements of the witnesses
recorded at the preliminary inquiry. Nothing was supplied to
her. On 13.3.2009 she addressed a letter to the Director
General CRPF requesting that she be transferred and
preferably to Kolkata. The request went unheeded. On
15.3.2009 she sought an interview from the Commandant
expressly writing that the events at the unit had caused her
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 3 of 13
extreme mental stress. The Commandant paid no heed to the
letter dated 15.3.2009.
7. On 16.3.2009 the petitioner was found in a state of
stupor and finding something amiss was immediately rushed
to the Baptist Hospital Bangaluru. Strips of tablets Nitrest and
Crocin were found in her pockets. The petitioner was given a
stomach wash and she told the doctors that she had taken two
5 mg tablets of Nitrest and two tablets of Crocin and denying
having attempted to commit suicide informed that she had
been feeling stressed and as a reason thereof could not sleep
and thus Dr.Mangal Manjhri had prescribed Nitrest to be taken
by her. We note that Nitrest is a medicine prescribed to
induce sleep.
8. What does the petitioner have to say about the
events which preceded the unfortunate incident of the
petitioner having acted indiscreet? The petitioner makes
averments in para 7 of the writ petition which reads as under:-
“7. That as the Petitioner was very depressed
because of the false allegations leveled against her
and since none of her senior officers were willing to
even listen to her on 16.3.2009 she again made a
futile attempt to get an interview with the
Commandant for which she waited from 9.30 A.M. to
5.30 P.M. and therefore in the evening. She in Order
to get some sleep took 2 painkiller tablet alongwith 2
tablets of Nitrest 5 mg (which had been prescribed to
her by a Registered Practitioner on 21.10.2008 in her
home town Jamshedpur) but perhaps due to
exhaustion and due to sleeplessness for last 3-4 days
and perhaps a slightly excessive dose of 2 tablets, the
Petitioner became unconscious and was taken to
Baptist Hospital in Bangalore where the Hospital
Authorities immediately informed the Police Authority
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 4 of 13
of Amruthahali who came to the Hospital and recorded
her statement. A true copy of the Medical Prescription
dated 21.10.2008 is annexed as Annexure P-5.”
9. In the counter affidavit filed have replied to the
same, in para 3 of their counter affidavit as under:-
“3. It is respectfully submitted that vide letter dated
16.3.2009, the petitioner expressed her wish to meet
the Commandant but he meeting could not take place
because the Commandant was pre-occupied with
other duties at the airport. It is pertinent to mention
that on the same day, it was reported that the
petitioner tried to commit suicide and consumed some
sleeping pills Zolphadin (Nitrest 10mg) tablets. The
empty strip of the said medicine recovered from her
room at ladies accommodation. The petitioner was
immediately attended and was taken to the Baptist
Hospital, Bangalor by Lady HC/GD Padma Bane and
Lady SI Ravi Kiran. It is most humbly submitted that a
note dated 16.3.2009 was also recovered from her
room. The contents of her letter dated 19.1.2009 read
with contents of note dated 16.3.2009 reveal that
Lady SI/Exe M Meena Kumar attempted to commit
suicide in order to pressurize the department. That
the petitioner while giving statement to the police on
17.03.2009, claimed that she had taken an extra dose
of pills due to depression and to induce sleep. After
the treatment, L/SI Meena Kumari was discharged
from hospital on 18.03.2009. All necessary help were
extended to her during this period by the Department.
Copy of the discharge summary is annexed as
Annexure R-1/C.”
10. It is apparent that the respondents have admitted
that the petitioner waited whole day long to meet the
Commandant, who unfortunately could not take out any time
for her.
11. On 17.3.2009 the petitioner gave a written version
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 5 of 13
of the medicines taken by her. She informed as under:-
“To
The Police Inspector
Amruthnahalli Police Station
Bangalore City
FM
M.Meena, D/o MV Ramana, aged 28/F
Add.- 103, Amruthnahalli Sri Auna Residency
Respected Sir,
Sir, in the above address I have myself with my
room-mates with SI/Exe Bhuneshwari, I am working in
CISF as Si/Exe. I am suffering from my headache since
3-4 days and I want to take interview with my Comdt.
Sir on 16.3.2009 but due to administrative reason he
was not present there. Then after I fed up with my
problem. For sound sleep I took 4-5 tablets at 8;30
p.m. of sleeping then I felt unconsciousness.
Thereafter Hostel warden CHM took me in the hospital.
Now I am in well condition. This incident is
unexpected.
Sir, I want to talk my respected Sir to tell my problem
physically as well as mentally and I sure that he will
help me definitely.
I don‟t want give any complain regarding this incident
(taking overdose of sleeping tablets)
Thank you,
Yours faithfully
Sd/
M.Meena, SI/Exe
CISF BIAL Bangalore”
12. Relevant would it be to note that on 18.3.2009 the
petitioner was discharged from the hospital at Bangaluru and it
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 6 of 13
was recorded in the discharge summary that the petitioner
was under multiple stress and tension and was having a
disturbed sleep. That she had no psychiatric disturbance and
that as told to the doctors, the petitioner consumed excessive
dose of medicine as she claimed not being able to sleep for the
last 4 days and having severe headache.
13. Noting that when she was brought to the hospital at
Bangaluru, since it was an apparent case of attempted suicide,
a penal offence, the local police was informed. Petitioner‟s
statement was recorded and relevant medical papers were
seized by the police and indisputably the matter was closed by
the local police and prima facie it can be said that it would not
be a case of attempted suicide, but an act of indiscretion in
consuming excessive medicine, but not so excessive as could
be life threatening.
14. In spite thereof, on 27.4.2009 a memorandum was
issued alleging 3 charges against the petitioner as under:-
“ARTICLE-I
“On 16.03.2009, at about 2030 hrs, CISF
No.062230104, Lady Sub-Inspector M.Meena Kumari of
CISF BIA, Bengaluru tried to commit suicide by
consuming sleeping pills to pressurize the senior
officers to become undue sympathetic towards her.
The above said act on the part of Lady Sub Inspector
M.Meena Kumari tantamount to gross indiscipline and
unbecoming of a member of the Force.” Hence the
charge.
ARTICLE-II
“Gross indiscipline and misconduct in that, CISF
No.062230104, Lady Sub-Inspector M.Meena Kumari of
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 7 of 13
CISF BIA, Bengaluru misbehaved with other lady
personnel staying in ladies barrack and intimidated
them to be overly friendly with her and threatening
them that if they did not do so, she will commit
suicide.” Hence the charge.
ARTICLE-III
“Gross indiscipline, in-subordination and unbecoming
of a member of the Force, in that, CISF No.062230104,
Lady Sub-Inspector M.Meena Kumari of CISF BIA,
Bengaluru on 19.01.2009 had intentionally tried to
misguide her senior officers by making false
allegations against her senior, Lady Insp/Exe Indu
M.Kumar to conceal her faults.” Hence the charge.”
15. Examining 9 prosecution witnesses and 3 as court
witnesses and 1 as defence witness, the Inquiry Officer
submitted a report dated 14.10.2009 which was forwarded to
the petitioner and in respect whereof she gave a written
response on 2.11.2009. The Disciplinary Authority exonerated
the petitioner of charges 2 and 3 but held her guilty of charge
No.1 by holding that evidence established that petitioner tried
to commit suicide to pressurize senior officers to be unduly
sympathetic towards her, which act amounted to gross
indiscipline. Vide order dated 23.11.2009, holding as
aforesaid, the Disciplinary Authority levied penalty of reducing
petitioner by one stage in the pay for a period of 3 years with
cumulative effect.
16. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the penalty
levied. On 5.3.2001 the Appellate Authority issued a show
cause notice to the petitioner prima facie recording that the
penalty levied was inadequate and required the petitioner to
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 8 of 13
show cause as to why the penalty be not enhanced to one of
reduction in pay by 3 stages for a period of 3 years with
permanent effect. The petitioner submitted a reply thereto on
9.4.2010. Rejecting the reply filed, the Appellate Authority,
vide order dated 21.4.2010 levied the penalty proposed to be
enhanced in the show cause notice dated 5.3.2001. Revisional
remedy availed by the petitioner met with no success when
vide order dated 8.9.2010 the revision petition filed by the
petitioner against the Appellate Order dated 21.4.2010 was
dismissed.
17. This has necessitated the petitioner filing the above
captioned writ petition in which she questions the order dated
23.11.2009, 21.4.2010 and 8.9.2010 passed by the
Disciplinary, Appellate and Revisional Authority respectively.
18. Since the petitioner has not been found guilty of the
second and the third charge it is apparent that there is no
evidence of the petitioner intimidating any lady personnel
under threat that if they do not become friendly with her she
would commit suicide. Also, there is no evidence that the
petitioner intentionally tried to misguide senior officers by
making false allegations against Indu M.Kumar to conceal her
fault.
19. In fact we find that 3 witnesses of the prosecution
have supported the version of the petitioner that Insp.Indu
M.Kumar had tried to influence them and Indu M.Kumar had
even threatened the petitioner when she learnt that the
petitioner had confirmed to the superior authorities that
husband of Indu M.Kumar used to stay in the women‟s barrack.
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 9 of 13
20. The question would be, whether the CISF officials
and in particular the Commandant of the Unit has remained
guilty of not paying heed to the cries of distress of the
petitioner and what would be legal consequence thereof.
21. In law, a party would be liable for the consequences
of not reasonably foreseeing the result of its inaction.
22. Facts noted by us establish that since 19.1.2009,
the petitioner made enumerable attempts to reach out to the
Commandant as also the Director General CRPF and even
sought an appointment with the DIG concerned. The
representations of the petitioner dated 19.1.2009, 31.1.2009,
26.2.2009 and 15.3.2009 show the stress which was being
faced by the petitioner on account of rumours being spread
about her and she was desperately seeking an appointment
with the Commandant. That on 16.3.2009 from 9:30 AM to
5:30 PM she waited for the Commandant to give her an
interview establishes the direness of the situation and indeed,
we find that the Commandant of the Unit has failed to
discharge the duty of reasonable care i.e. the duty to give
audience to his subordinate officer who was wanting an urgent
audience as the matter was getting out of hand. We highlight
that petitioner‟s assertions in para 7 of the writ petition where
she has brought out the urgency of the matter and what led
her to take an overdose of Nitrest has been explained have not
been denied, rather have been admitted by the respondents.
23. The medical evidence does not show that the
petitioner took such overdose of Nitrest and Crocin as could be
fatal. As explained by the petitioner, she was so overstressed
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 10 of 13
and since she could not sleep for the previous 4 nights, in her
own wisdom she doubled the dose of medicine. As against 1
tablet of Nitrest, she consumed 2. It thus cannot be said that
the petitioner attempted to commit suicide.
24. Assuming that the petitioner did so. It is plain
obvious that a decision taken by a person to ends one‟s life is
the obvious and direct result of the immediacy of a present
sense of hopelessness overwhelming the grudging
eventualities of a future hope. When the present becomes
blank and the future presents itself as something black, infinite
and unbearable, in the cloudy depths of the troubled mind
death emerges as an escape route i.e. the only release from
the direness of the situation.
25. Thus, relationship between life and death becomes
reversed: Life becomes a problem and death emerges as the
freedom.
26. A suicide is an act of colossal waste and willful
destruction of life that it compels the society to try and pin
responsibility on someone and in this endeavour one is left
struggling to attach meaning to an act expressly designed to
eliminate it. This is the society‟s way of affirming purpose to
life and the society‟s faith in its preciousness. This explains
the irony that if the suicide attempt ends in a failure, the
person himself is prosecuted, but if it succeeds, we look to
others.
27. Thus, it is apparent that every suicide asks
questions of those immediately connected to the event, if not
the society at large.
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 11 of 13
28. Facts of the instant case brings out that the so-
called attempted suicide act of the petitioner was actually the
result of, if we may use the expression „Unit disease of
indifference‟. Her letters to which we have noted gave enough
warning signals to the Commandant and the other superior
officers that there was something fundamentally wrong in the
way the Unit was being commanded and it was obvious that
the signals were telling that unless remedial action was taken,
sooner or later, some day and somewhere, the petitioner
would have to pay the price.
29. We hold the superior officers completely
responsible for what has happened and in law, it has to be
held that the Commandant had failed in the duty to give an
audience to the petitioner and intervene in the matter to
ensure that the petitioner was not subject to a slander
campaign. Any prudent person could reasonably foresee that
if the petitioner who was sending out distress signals was not
given a patient hearing the likely fallout would be an extreme
step which the petitioner could take and thus the fault for
whatever has been done by the petitioner is not hers but that
of the Commandant.
30. It is true that an act of suicide would normally be a
matter of discretion for the reason it can be said that the
person concerned had a choice, but there may be situations
where a person is virtually left with no choice for example
where the tormentors by way of a systematic campaign drive a
person to commit suicide by leaving no other choice.
31. The facts of the instant case bring out that the
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 12 of 13
Commandant of the Unit could reasonably be fastened with
the liability of not having ensured the duty to listen to the
petitioner and hence in law it has to be held that the action of
the petitioner could be reasonably foreseen when she wrote
the various letters and by not setting the Unit in order, the
organization cannot shift the blame on to the shoulders of the
petitioner.
32. We allow the writ petition and quash the impugned
order dated 23.11.2009, the order dated 21.4.2010 as also the
order dated 8.9.2010 and absolve the petitioner of the charge
levied against her.
33. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(SURESH KAIT)
JUDGE
MARCH 24, 2011
mm
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 13 of 13
nd
% Judgment Reserved On: 22 March, 2011
th
Judgment Delivered On: 24 March, 2011
+ W.P.(C) No.8439/2010
M.MEENA KUMARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Rekha Palli, Advocate with
Ms.Punam Singh and Ms.Amrita
Prakash, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Neeraj Choudhary, CGSC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. The petitioner, who we are informed has Post-
Graduate Degree in Mathematics followed by a Masters
Degree in Business Administration appeared at the
competitive examination conducted by the Staff Selection
Commission for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors under the
Central Para-Military Forces and successfully cleared the
selection. She was allocated to the Central Industrial Security
Force on 23.12.2006 and prior thereto she had served in
Central Reserve Police Force as an Assistant Sub-Inspector
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 1 of 13
from 16.2.2001 to 19.12.2006.
2. Joining CISF the petitioner was posted at Bangaluru
on 26.4.2008 and was staying at the Lady‟s Hostel of which
Insp.Indu M.Kumar was the In-charge.
3. As per the petitioner Insp.Indu M.Kumar used to
allow her husband to stay with her at the Lady‟s Hostel which
was contrary to the rules and when the Commandant learnt
about the same and made discreet inquiries, the petitioner
told the truth to the Commandant and unfortunately for her,
Insp.Indu M.Kumar learnt about the same and hence became
vindictive towards her. The Company Havaldar Major Padma
Bane acted under the dictates of Insp.Indu M.Kumar and
spread a canard that petitioner used to indulge in excessive
smoking and drinking in the Lady‟s Hostel room allotted to her
and as a result thereof the petitioner was under a mental
stress. She wrote a letter on 19.1.2009 to the Commandant
informing that due to rumours being spread about her
character, she was extremely disturbed. She requested the
Commandant to investigate the rumours spread about her.
She highlighted that she was extremely depressed on her
character being brazenly talked about. The respondents have
not disputed said letter being received by the Commandant.
The petitioner was not even given a hearing by the
Commandant and thus she wrote another letter dated
31.1.2009 to the Commandant in which she requested that the
Commandant should urgently look into the matter. She sought
5 days‟ earned leave with permission to meet the DIG at
Chennai. The respondents admit receipt of the said letter as
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 2 of 13
also the fact that no action was taken thereon. On 26.2.2009
the petitioner submitted another letter to the Commandant
with an urgent request to spare some time for a personal
interview with her. Unfortunately, the Commandant ignored
the said letter, receipt whereof has not been denied by the
respondents.
4. On 12.3.2009 the Commandant issued a written
warning to the petitioner informing that after he had received
petitioner‟s letter dated 19.1.2009 he conducted a preliminary
inquiry through the Assistant Commandant B.S.Dongo and
Lady Insp.V.D.Mini who have reported that petitioner‟s
complaint against Insp.Indu M.Kumar was baseless and that
the room-mates and other inmates of the Lady‟s hostel have
reported that petitioner was found smoking cigarettes in the
balcony of her room and had felt alcohol like smell coming
from the petitioner‟s room. The petitioner was warned that
since the Lady‟s barrack was a public place she was supposed
to be careful and should not smoke or drink in the barrack.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not
associated at the preliminary inquiry supposedly conducted.
6. The very next day i.e. on 13.3.2009 the petitioner
requested to be supplied with the statements of the witnesses
recorded at the preliminary inquiry. Nothing was supplied to
her. On 13.3.2009 she addressed a letter to the Director
General CRPF requesting that she be transferred and
preferably to Kolkata. The request went unheeded. On
15.3.2009 she sought an interview from the Commandant
expressly writing that the events at the unit had caused her
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 3 of 13
extreme mental stress. The Commandant paid no heed to the
letter dated 15.3.2009.
7. On 16.3.2009 the petitioner was found in a state of
stupor and finding something amiss was immediately rushed
to the Baptist Hospital Bangaluru. Strips of tablets Nitrest and
Crocin were found in her pockets. The petitioner was given a
stomach wash and she told the doctors that she had taken two
5 mg tablets of Nitrest and two tablets of Crocin and denying
having attempted to commit suicide informed that she had
been feeling stressed and as a reason thereof could not sleep
and thus Dr.Mangal Manjhri had prescribed Nitrest to be taken
by her. We note that Nitrest is a medicine prescribed to
induce sleep.
8. What does the petitioner have to say about the
events which preceded the unfortunate incident of the
petitioner having acted indiscreet? The petitioner makes
averments in para 7 of the writ petition which reads as under:-
“7. That as the Petitioner was very depressed
because of the false allegations leveled against her
and since none of her senior officers were willing to
even listen to her on 16.3.2009 she again made a
futile attempt to get an interview with the
Commandant for which she waited from 9.30 A.M. to
5.30 P.M. and therefore in the evening. She in Order
to get some sleep took 2 painkiller tablet alongwith 2
tablets of Nitrest 5 mg (which had been prescribed to
her by a Registered Practitioner on 21.10.2008 in her
home town Jamshedpur) but perhaps due to
exhaustion and due to sleeplessness for last 3-4 days
and perhaps a slightly excessive dose of 2 tablets, the
Petitioner became unconscious and was taken to
Baptist Hospital in Bangalore where the Hospital
Authorities immediately informed the Police Authority
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 4 of 13
of Amruthahali who came to the Hospital and recorded
her statement. A true copy of the Medical Prescription
dated 21.10.2008 is annexed as Annexure P-5.”
9. In the counter affidavit filed have replied to the
same, in para 3 of their counter affidavit as under:-
“3. It is respectfully submitted that vide letter dated
16.3.2009, the petitioner expressed her wish to meet
the Commandant but he meeting could not take place
because the Commandant was pre-occupied with
other duties at the airport. It is pertinent to mention
that on the same day, it was reported that the
petitioner tried to commit suicide and consumed some
sleeping pills Zolphadin (Nitrest 10mg) tablets. The
empty strip of the said medicine recovered from her
room at ladies accommodation. The petitioner was
immediately attended and was taken to the Baptist
Hospital, Bangalor by Lady HC/GD Padma Bane and
Lady SI Ravi Kiran. It is most humbly submitted that a
note dated 16.3.2009 was also recovered from her
room. The contents of her letter dated 19.1.2009 read
with contents of note dated 16.3.2009 reveal that
Lady SI/Exe M Meena Kumar attempted to commit
suicide in order to pressurize the department. That
the petitioner while giving statement to the police on
17.03.2009, claimed that she had taken an extra dose
of pills due to depression and to induce sleep. After
the treatment, L/SI Meena Kumari was discharged
from hospital on 18.03.2009. All necessary help were
extended to her during this period by the Department.
Copy of the discharge summary is annexed as
Annexure R-1/C.”
10. It is apparent that the respondents have admitted
that the petitioner waited whole day long to meet the
Commandant, who unfortunately could not take out any time
for her.
11. On 17.3.2009 the petitioner gave a written version
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 5 of 13
of the medicines taken by her. She informed as under:-
“To
The Police Inspector
Amruthnahalli Police Station
Bangalore City
FM
M.Meena, D/o MV Ramana, aged 28/F
Add.- 103, Amruthnahalli Sri Auna Residency
Respected Sir,
Sir, in the above address I have myself with my
room-mates with SI/Exe Bhuneshwari, I am working in
CISF as Si/Exe. I am suffering from my headache since
3-4 days and I want to take interview with my Comdt.
Sir on 16.3.2009 but due to administrative reason he
was not present there. Then after I fed up with my
problem. For sound sleep I took 4-5 tablets at 8;30
p.m. of sleeping then I felt unconsciousness.
Thereafter Hostel warden CHM took me in the hospital.
Now I am in well condition. This incident is
unexpected.
Sir, I want to talk my respected Sir to tell my problem
physically as well as mentally and I sure that he will
help me definitely.
I don‟t want give any complain regarding this incident
(taking overdose of sleeping tablets)
Thank you,
Yours faithfully
Sd/
M.Meena, SI/Exe
CISF BIAL Bangalore”
12. Relevant would it be to note that on 18.3.2009 the
petitioner was discharged from the hospital at Bangaluru and it
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 6 of 13
was recorded in the discharge summary that the petitioner
was under multiple stress and tension and was having a
disturbed sleep. That she had no psychiatric disturbance and
that as told to the doctors, the petitioner consumed excessive
dose of medicine as she claimed not being able to sleep for the
last 4 days and having severe headache.
13. Noting that when she was brought to the hospital at
Bangaluru, since it was an apparent case of attempted suicide,
a penal offence, the local police was informed. Petitioner‟s
statement was recorded and relevant medical papers were
seized by the police and indisputably the matter was closed by
the local police and prima facie it can be said that it would not
be a case of attempted suicide, but an act of indiscretion in
consuming excessive medicine, but not so excessive as could
be life threatening.
14. In spite thereof, on 27.4.2009 a memorandum was
issued alleging 3 charges against the petitioner as under:-
“ARTICLE-I
“On 16.03.2009, at about 2030 hrs, CISF
No.062230104, Lady Sub-Inspector M.Meena Kumari of
CISF BIA, Bengaluru tried to commit suicide by
consuming sleeping pills to pressurize the senior
officers to become undue sympathetic towards her.
The above said act on the part of Lady Sub Inspector
M.Meena Kumari tantamount to gross indiscipline and
unbecoming of a member of the Force.” Hence the
charge.
ARTICLE-II
“Gross indiscipline and misconduct in that, CISF
No.062230104, Lady Sub-Inspector M.Meena Kumari of
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 7 of 13
CISF BIA, Bengaluru misbehaved with other lady
personnel staying in ladies barrack and intimidated
them to be overly friendly with her and threatening
them that if they did not do so, she will commit
suicide.” Hence the charge.
ARTICLE-III
“Gross indiscipline, in-subordination and unbecoming
of a member of the Force, in that, CISF No.062230104,
Lady Sub-Inspector M.Meena Kumari of CISF BIA,
Bengaluru on 19.01.2009 had intentionally tried to
misguide her senior officers by making false
allegations against her senior, Lady Insp/Exe Indu
M.Kumar to conceal her faults.” Hence the charge.”
15. Examining 9 prosecution witnesses and 3 as court
witnesses and 1 as defence witness, the Inquiry Officer
submitted a report dated 14.10.2009 which was forwarded to
the petitioner and in respect whereof she gave a written
response on 2.11.2009. The Disciplinary Authority exonerated
the petitioner of charges 2 and 3 but held her guilty of charge
No.1 by holding that evidence established that petitioner tried
to commit suicide to pressurize senior officers to be unduly
sympathetic towards her, which act amounted to gross
indiscipline. Vide order dated 23.11.2009, holding as
aforesaid, the Disciplinary Authority levied penalty of reducing
petitioner by one stage in the pay for a period of 3 years with
cumulative effect.
16. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the penalty
levied. On 5.3.2001 the Appellate Authority issued a show
cause notice to the petitioner prima facie recording that the
penalty levied was inadequate and required the petitioner to
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 8 of 13
show cause as to why the penalty be not enhanced to one of
reduction in pay by 3 stages for a period of 3 years with
permanent effect. The petitioner submitted a reply thereto on
9.4.2010. Rejecting the reply filed, the Appellate Authority,
vide order dated 21.4.2010 levied the penalty proposed to be
enhanced in the show cause notice dated 5.3.2001. Revisional
remedy availed by the petitioner met with no success when
vide order dated 8.9.2010 the revision petition filed by the
petitioner against the Appellate Order dated 21.4.2010 was
dismissed.
17. This has necessitated the petitioner filing the above
captioned writ petition in which she questions the order dated
23.11.2009, 21.4.2010 and 8.9.2010 passed by the
Disciplinary, Appellate and Revisional Authority respectively.
18. Since the petitioner has not been found guilty of the
second and the third charge it is apparent that there is no
evidence of the petitioner intimidating any lady personnel
under threat that if they do not become friendly with her she
would commit suicide. Also, there is no evidence that the
petitioner intentionally tried to misguide senior officers by
making false allegations against Indu M.Kumar to conceal her
fault.
19. In fact we find that 3 witnesses of the prosecution
have supported the version of the petitioner that Insp.Indu
M.Kumar had tried to influence them and Indu M.Kumar had
even threatened the petitioner when she learnt that the
petitioner had confirmed to the superior authorities that
husband of Indu M.Kumar used to stay in the women‟s barrack.
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 9 of 13
20. The question would be, whether the CISF officials
and in particular the Commandant of the Unit has remained
guilty of not paying heed to the cries of distress of the
petitioner and what would be legal consequence thereof.
21. In law, a party would be liable for the consequences
of not reasonably foreseeing the result of its inaction.
22. Facts noted by us establish that since 19.1.2009,
the petitioner made enumerable attempts to reach out to the
Commandant as also the Director General CRPF and even
sought an appointment with the DIG concerned. The
representations of the petitioner dated 19.1.2009, 31.1.2009,
26.2.2009 and 15.3.2009 show the stress which was being
faced by the petitioner on account of rumours being spread
about her and she was desperately seeking an appointment
with the Commandant. That on 16.3.2009 from 9:30 AM to
5:30 PM she waited for the Commandant to give her an
interview establishes the direness of the situation and indeed,
we find that the Commandant of the Unit has failed to
discharge the duty of reasonable care i.e. the duty to give
audience to his subordinate officer who was wanting an urgent
audience as the matter was getting out of hand. We highlight
that petitioner‟s assertions in para 7 of the writ petition where
she has brought out the urgency of the matter and what led
her to take an overdose of Nitrest has been explained have not
been denied, rather have been admitted by the respondents.
23. The medical evidence does not show that the
petitioner took such overdose of Nitrest and Crocin as could be
fatal. As explained by the petitioner, she was so overstressed
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 10 of 13
and since she could not sleep for the previous 4 nights, in her
own wisdom she doubled the dose of medicine. As against 1
tablet of Nitrest, she consumed 2. It thus cannot be said that
the petitioner attempted to commit suicide.
24. Assuming that the petitioner did so. It is plain
obvious that a decision taken by a person to ends one‟s life is
the obvious and direct result of the immediacy of a present
sense of hopelessness overwhelming the grudging
eventualities of a future hope. When the present becomes
blank and the future presents itself as something black, infinite
and unbearable, in the cloudy depths of the troubled mind
death emerges as an escape route i.e. the only release from
the direness of the situation.
25. Thus, relationship between life and death becomes
reversed: Life becomes a problem and death emerges as the
freedom.
26. A suicide is an act of colossal waste and willful
destruction of life that it compels the society to try and pin
responsibility on someone and in this endeavour one is left
struggling to attach meaning to an act expressly designed to
eliminate it. This is the society‟s way of affirming purpose to
life and the society‟s faith in its preciousness. This explains
the irony that if the suicide attempt ends in a failure, the
person himself is prosecuted, but if it succeeds, we look to
others.
27. Thus, it is apparent that every suicide asks
questions of those immediately connected to the event, if not
the society at large.
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 11 of 13
28. Facts of the instant case brings out that the so-
called attempted suicide act of the petitioner was actually the
result of, if we may use the expression „Unit disease of
indifference‟. Her letters to which we have noted gave enough
warning signals to the Commandant and the other superior
officers that there was something fundamentally wrong in the
way the Unit was being commanded and it was obvious that
the signals were telling that unless remedial action was taken,
sooner or later, some day and somewhere, the petitioner
would have to pay the price.
29. We hold the superior officers completely
responsible for what has happened and in law, it has to be
held that the Commandant had failed in the duty to give an
audience to the petitioner and intervene in the matter to
ensure that the petitioner was not subject to a slander
campaign. Any prudent person could reasonably foresee that
if the petitioner who was sending out distress signals was not
given a patient hearing the likely fallout would be an extreme
step which the petitioner could take and thus the fault for
whatever has been done by the petitioner is not hers but that
of the Commandant.
30. It is true that an act of suicide would normally be a
matter of discretion for the reason it can be said that the
person concerned had a choice, but there may be situations
where a person is virtually left with no choice for example
where the tormentors by way of a systematic campaign drive a
person to commit suicide by leaving no other choice.
31. The facts of the instant case bring out that the
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 12 of 13
Commandant of the Unit could reasonably be fastened with
the liability of not having ensured the duty to listen to the
petitioner and hence in law it has to be held that the action of
the petitioner could be reasonably foreseen when she wrote
the various letters and by not setting the Unit in order, the
organization cannot shift the blame on to the shoulders of the
petitioner.
32. We allow the writ petition and quash the impugned
order dated 23.11.2009, the order dated 21.4.2010 as also the
order dated 8.9.2010 and absolve the petitioner of the charge
levied against her.
33. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(SURESH KAIT)
JUDGE
MARCH 24, 2011
mm
W.P.(C).No.8439/2010 Page 13 of 13