LexMISS RADHA BAI versus THE UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
i \ • MISS RADHA BAI v. THE UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS. APRIL 20, 1995 [KULDIP SINGH AND KS. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) Service Law : - A B Shelter Home for Women-Allegations of misuse by minister and C officers-Exposure by lady Assistant Directo,-.Harassment and attempt to molest Assistant Director-Removal from service-Complaint to Gover- nor-Enquiry ordered by Governor-Non-compliance with Governor's order-Directions by Supreme Court-£nquiry by District Judge-District Judge Reporting that Prosecutrix case was not corroborated by evidence-Rejection of report by Supreme Court-Award of compensation D and retiral benefits . . Criminal Law-Sexual offence-Testimony of prosecutrix-Need for corroboration. Administrative Law-Public Authority-Duty to act bona fide and reasonably-Aggrieved person should not be driven from pillar to post-In case of lapse, authority should be responsible for loss and damage to ag- grieved person. E The appellant, an Assistant Director in the Social Welfare Depart- p ment of the Government of Pondicherry, filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court praying for a direction to implement the order dated 22nd July, 1978 passed by the Governor of Tamil Nadu directing an enquiry into the complaint filed by the appellant. Her case was that she exposed the misdeeds of one of the ministers in the Pondicherry Government, respon- dent 3 herein, who along with the connivance of some of officials was · G misusing for immoral and illegal purposes the women residents of the shelter home arrested under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act. This according to her infuriated the third respondent and other officers and . they began teasing and harassing the appellant. False criminal charges were levelled against her and attempts were also made to commit her to H 561 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 3 S.C.R. A prison on the ground that she was a lunatic. She demanded an enquiry and therefore she was suspended from services and was ultimately removed from service on 30.9.1981. She submitted a representation to the Governor of Tamil Nadu complaining that attempts were made to molest her and accordingly prayed for intervention to set right the matter. By an B order dated 22nd July, 1978 the Governor directed an enquiry into the appellant's allegations but the same was not complied with by the ad- ministration and no enquiry 1vas held. Thereafter, the appellant flied a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed on the ground that the Governor's order was incomplete and inexecutable. C The appellant preferred an appeal before this Court and by its order dated 26th July, 1994 this Court held that (i) the order passed by the Governor in his capacity as the Administrator Pondicherry Government was valid and the administration was bound by the same; (ii) the High Court failed to do substantial justice in the case and declined to interfere in the matter on the basis of irrelevant and faulty reasoning. This court D further directed the District Judge, Pondicherry to conduct an enquiry into the appellant's complaint. The District Judge reported that the allegations of the appellant against the respondent-minister and other officers were not proved by the corroboration of the evidence of the complainant or her documents. E Disposing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The Enquiry Report submitted by the District Judge is unhelpful, infirm and is unsustainable. The law laid down by this Court as to whether there is any need to insist upon corroboration to the , ..j F testimony of prosecutrix in sexual offence, has been completely ignored by the District Judge in submitting his report. Therefore, his report is unac- ceptable nd the same is rejected. [568-F, G, 569-G] Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, [1983] 3 SCC 217 G and State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain Etc., [1990] 1 sec 550, relied on. 2. A responsible statutory authority or administration, owes a duty to the public, to discharge its functions reasonably, honestly and bonafide, without driving the aggrieved persons from pillar to post, and should there H be any non-execusable lapse on this score, the concerned authority or i \ RADHABA!v. UNIONTERRITORYOFPONDICHERRY 563 administration should be held responsible for the loss or damage accruing A thereby to the aggrieved persons. [570-E, F] 3. From the affidavits f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.