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