Holding

The Governor's order was valid and binding, the administration must comply, corroboration is not required for a prosecutrix's testimony, and the appellant is entitled to pension and compensation.

Summary

Miss Radha Bai, an Assistant Director in the Pondicherry Social Welfare Department, alleged that a minister and officials misused a shelter home for women and attempted to molest her. She complained to the Governor, who ordered a judicial enquiry, but the administration failed to comply. The Madras High Court dismissed her writ petition, holding the Governor's order incomplete. The Supreme Court held the Governor's order valid, directed a District Judge to conduct the enquiry, and rejected the Judge's report that dismissed her allegations for lack of corroboration, citing precedent that corroboration is not required for a prosecutrix in sexual offence cases. Consequently, the Court awarded her a lump‑sum compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs and directed that she be treated as having retired on superannuation, granting her pension and other benefits.

Issues considered

The validity and enforceability of the Governor's order directing an enquiry.
The duty of the administration to comply with the Governor's order.
Whether corroboration of a prosecutrix's testimony is required in sexual offence allegations.
The entitlement of the appellant to pension and compensation due to wrongful removal from service.
The liability of a public authority for loss suffered by an aggrieved employee.

Legislation cited

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972s. Rule 48-B
Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 227
Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act

Subjects

service lawsexual offencecorroborationadministrative lawduty of public authoritycompensationpensionwrongful terminationshelter homegender harassment

Judgment

i \

MISS RADHA BAI A
v.
THE UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY REPRESENTED
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS.

APRIL 20, 1995
B
[KULDIP SINGH AND KS. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.)

Service Law : -

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
E
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.

• 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 filed by the appellant, her statements of allega-
tions, the various documents and also the other relevant papers filed in the
case, there is no doubt that something, as stated by the appellant, should
have happened iu a broad sense though the precise details relating thereto B
have not come to light. The entire episode is really unfortunate and this
Court expresses its anguish in the matter. It also appears that all was not
well with regard to the manner and method of the running of the shelter
home and the steps taken by the appellant to set right the matter seems to
have provoked 'the powers that be'. It is evident that there was inaction and C
attempt to cover up the entire episode, The fact that the high constitutional
dignitary, Governor of Tamil Nadu, who was the Administrator of Pon-
dicherry, felt that a prima facie case is disclosed and ordered that the
allegations regarding the endeavour to molest the appellant need inde-
pendent enquiry in the interest of justice cannot he and should not have D
been ignored The Administration failed in its duty to give elTect to the said
order within a reasonable time. On the other hand, the attempt was to
-( 'shelve' the matter, by putting forward untenable pleas. [570-B to E]

4. It cannot be gainsaid that the modesty of a woman is very precious
to her from all points of view and when attempts were made to molest the E
appellant 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 he moral indignation or resentment. Even a judicial
enquiry, ordered by the highest constitutional functionary in the State to F
investigate the matter, was rendered futile by the concerned officials and
fGr a period of 17 years no redress or remedy has been rendered to the
appellant This is sad Indeed. [570-G, H, 571-A]

5. The appellant should he afforded relief by award of a lump:sum G
compensation of Rupees three lakhs for the loss of her reputation and
honour and the agony she had to suffer in the long battle. [571-E]

6. In the normal course the appellant would have attained superan-
nuation only on 25.8.1992. There are materials available in the records to
show that the appellant was a highly competent, hard working, sincere and H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A 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 impedi·
ment therefor. Considering the totality of the circumstances and the
non-execusable lapses of the administration and in doing complete justice
B in the matter, this Court is of the view that that it should be declared that
the appellant was compulsorily retired on attaining the age of superannua-
tion and should be afforded pension and other consequential and inciden·
tal benents, on the basis that she was compulsorily retired from service on
25.8.1992. (571-C, DJ

C CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 117 of
1986.

Prom the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.83 of the Madras High
Court in W.P. No. 1329 of 1979.

D K.Sukumaran, C.K. Sasi and Ms. Revathy Raghavan for the Appel-
lant.

AS. Nambiar, R. Mohan, Ms. Shanta Vasudevan, P.K. Manohar, R.
Nedumaran and V.G. Pragasam for the Respondents.

E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PARIPOORNAN, J. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1329of1979
of the High Court of Madras, is the appellaot 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
F 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.
G 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 Ad·
visory 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
H appointed as Social Education Organiser in the Development Department,
RADHABA!v. UNIONTERRITORYOFPOND!CHERRY[PAR!POORNAN,J.[565

Government of Pondicherry. In 1973, the appellant was Assistant Director A··
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 Suppres-
sion of Immoral Traffic Act was started at Reddiarpalayam by the Social
Welfare Directorate. It is the appellant's case, that in 1973, she received a B
report that the above institution was being misused by the third respondent
herein with the connivance of the Superintendent, for illegal and immoral
purposes. The appellant reprimanded the Superintendent. This infuriated
the third respondent and other officers who apprehended that their mis-
deeds will be exposed. They began teasing the appellant. The appellant was
transferred from Pondicherry to Karaikkal. On an enquiry by the Inspec- C
tor-General of Police on the orders of U. 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 ac-
tivities with the help of some officials. The appellant's presence was an D
irritation to the third respondent and other officials. In September, 1977,
i
some false criminal charges were levelled 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. There- E
after, the appellant resorted to fast, and on the assurances of the Chief
Minister and the Union Minister for Tourism that remedial action will be
tai\en, 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 repre- F
sentation, 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 22.7.1979, 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. Thereupoa G
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 H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A order dated 22.7.1978 is incomplete and inexecutable 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 :
B
"Miss Radha Bai, the appellant, was working as Assistant Director,
local Administration Cepartment, Govt. of Pondicherry. She made
a written complaint before the Governor of Pondicherry wherein
it was alleged that the Minister incharge and other officers named
c 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 iJ\to the
allegation contained in the complaint filed before him by Radha
Bai. The operative part of the order was as under :
D
'proceedings of the Governor of Tamil Nadu

And

Administrator the Union Territory of Pondicherry.
E
Dated: 22nd July, 1978.

Sub: Representation from Miss N. Radha Bai, Assistant Director,
Local Administration Department.
F
After giving full consideration to the representaiion of Miss N.
Radba 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, I feel that the matter regarding allegations against Shri
G D. Ramachandran, Shri T.T. Joseph and Shri S.V. Ranganathan
about the endeavour to molest the applicant need independent
enquiry in the interests of justice and in order to keep up the
prestige of the Administration and particularly women members
of the staff. I order that a Judicial Officer of the rank of District
H Judge be appointed to conduct the enquiry only for the above
RADHABA!v. UNION TERRITORY OFPONDICHERRY (PARJPOOR.NAN,J.]567

points.' A
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 Pon-
dicherry Administration to hold an enquiry as directed by the B
Governor. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court.
This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the
Higb Court.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view C
that the High Court fell into patent error in dismissing the writ
petition. Instead of doing substantial justice in the case the Higb
Court declined to interfere on the reasoning which was wholly
irrelevant and against law. We are of the view that the order passed
by the Governor in his capacity as the Administrator of Pondicher-
ry Government was valid and the Administration was bound by the D
same. We direct the Pondicherry Administration througb 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 E
.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 F
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 Chief Secretary and G
District Judge, Pondicherry before 9.8.94."

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 H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A deposition of 19 witnesses (PW1-PW19) and the documents (Ext. Pl-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 com-
plaint or her documents." In more pieces than one, after adverting to the
evidence of PW-1 (to PW-19) (Appellant and others) the learned District
B 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 Shri K. Sukumaran, Senior Counsel who appeared for
-
C the appellant, Sri AS. Nambiuar, 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.

D 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 a.nd 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
E 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 unhelp-
ful, infirm and is unsustainable. As we indicated earlier the substantial
F 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
G 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:

H "On principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on
.RADHABA!v. UNION TERRITORY OFPONDICHERRY [PARIPOORNAN,J.]569

par with evidence of an injnred witness. Just as a witness who has A
sustained an injury (which is not showo or believed to be self
inflicted) is the best witness in the sense that she is least likely to
exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of a sex
offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration not.
withstanding ....... if the evidence of the victim does not suffer any B
basic infirmity, and the 'probabilities factor' does not render it
unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist
-on corroboration."

Again in State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain Etc.,
[1990] 1 SCC 550, at p. 559, this Conrt laid dowo the law thus : C
"............. if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the
conrt is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the
same is showo 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 D
the person charged, the Conrt should ordinarily have no hesitation
•• in accepting her evidence. We llllve, therefore, no doubt in onr
minds \hat ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix who does not
lack understanding must be accepted. The degree of proof re·
quired Must not be higher than is excepted of an injnred wit· E
ness ........ .

Ord_inarily the evidence of a prosecutrix must carry the same
weight as is attached to an injnred. person who is a victim of
violence, unless there are speci:tl circumstances which call for
greater caution, in which case it would be safe to act on her F
testimony if there is independent evidence lending assnrance to
her accusation. n

( e~phasis supplied)

In the light of the above decisions of this Conrt the report submitted
G
by the District Judge, Pondicherry in pnrsuance of the order passed by this
Court is unacceptable and we reject the same.

6. 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 H
1

570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 3 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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 Reddiar-
C palayarn 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 T arnil Na du, who was the Administrator of Pondicherry, felt
D 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,
E by putting forward untenable pleas. 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 be any non-excusable lapse on this
score, the concerned authority or administration, should be held respon-
sible for the loss or damage accruing thereby to the aggrieved persons.
F Even the High Court on an erroneous view declined relief to the appellant.
It cannot be gainsaid 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 under-
sirable happenings in the shelter home for woman, any person placed iii
G 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,
crdered by the highest constitutional functionary in the State to investigate
the matter, was rendered futile by the concerned officials and for a period
H of 17 years no redress or remedy has been rendered to the appellant. This
RADHABA!v. UNION'IERRITORY OFPONDICHERRY (PARIPOORNAN, J.)571

is sad indeed! The appellant entered service in 1958. Due to estranged A
relationship, events one after another following and eventually the appel-
lant 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 (Pen- B
sion) 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 C
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 impedi-
ment therefor. Considering the totality of the circumstances and the non- D
execusable 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 compulsGrily retired on attaining the age of superannuation and should
be afforded pensioL and all other consequential and incidental benefits, on
the basis that she was compulsorily retired from service on 25.8.1992. She
would be entitled to pension and other retirement benefits. Besides, the E
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, ;:iayable jointly by respondents
1 and 3, within one month today. We order accordingly.

The appeal shall stand disposed of as above with no order as to costs. F

T.N.A. Appeal disposed of.