THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANR.versusS. SAMUTHIRAM

                         [2012] 11 S.C.R. 174


A      THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE &
                         ANR.
                                    v.
                           S. SAMUTHIRAM
                   (Civil Appeal No. 8513 of 2012)
B
                        NOVEMBER 30, 2012

        [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

         Service Law:
c
           Dismissal - Member of Armed Reserved - Prosecution
     of, for offences punishable uls 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
     Eve-Teasing Act and s. 509 /PC - In departmental inquiry
     a/legations found proved and punishment of dismissal
0    imposed - Subsequently, acquittal in criminal case - Held:
     Mere acquittal of an employee by a criminal court has no
     impact on the disciplinary proceedings - In the absence of
     any provision in the service rule for reinstatement, if an
     employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right
E    is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including
     reinstatement - In the instant case, in departmental
     proceedings the charges were proved - In the criminal case
     the complainants turned hostile and other key witnesses
     including the doctor were not examined by the prosecution -
     In the circumstances, the court held that there was no
F    evidence to implicate the accused - That being the factual
     situation, the delinquent cannot be said to have been
    honourably acquitted by criminal court - Even otherwise, he
     is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu
     Service Rules do not provide so - High Court, in its limited
G   jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution, was not justified
    in setting aside the punishment imposed in the departmental
    proceedings - Judgment of High Court is set aside - Tamil
     Nadu Prohibition of Eve-Teasing Act, 1998 - s.4 -
     Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226.
H                                  174
 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v. S.                  175
               SAMUTHIRAM
    Sexual Harassment:                                             A

     Eve-teasing - Held: Eve-teasing is a euphemism, a
conduct which attracts penal action - The consequence of
eve-teasing may at times be disastrous - There is no uniform
law to curb eve-teasing effectively - Only in the State of Tamil   8
Nadu, a Statute has been enacted, and that too has no teeth
- The necessity of a proper legislation to curb eve-teasing is
of extreme importance - Until suitable legislation to curb eve-
teasing takes place, directions are issued to take urgent
measures so that the evil can be curtailed to some extent -
 Constitution oflndia, 1950-Arts. 21, 14 and 15- Legislation.      C
     WORDS AND PHRASES:

     Expression, 'honourable acquittal' - Explained.

     The respondent, while posted with the Armed D
Reserve and deputed for duty at a Police out post, was
by an order dated 18.7.1999 placed under suspension
w.e.f. 10.7.1999. The allegations against him were that on
9. 7.1999, at 11 :00 pm he went to the bus stand in a
drunken state and misbehaved with and eve-teased a E
married woman. He was also found absent from duties.
A complaint against the respondent was registered at the
Police Station for offences punishable u/s 4 of the Tamil
Nadu Prohibition of Eve-Teasing Act, 1998 and s.509 IPC.
The departmental proceedings culminated in dismissal of F
the respondent from service. During the pendency of the
O.A. filed by the respondent before the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal, he was acquitted in the criminal
case. The Tribunal held that no reliance could be placed
on the judgment of the criminal court, and dismissed the G
O.A. However, the High Court allowed the writ petition of
the respondent.
   In the instant appeal filed by the Department, the
question for consideration before the Court was: when              H
    176    SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2012) 11 S.C.R.


A the departmental enquiry has been concluded resulting
  in the dismissal of the delinquent from service, will the
  subsequent finding recorded by the criminal court
  acquitting the respondent delinquent, have any effect on
  the departmental proceedings?
B
       Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. Mere acquittal of an employee by a
   criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary
   proceedings initiated by the Department. The charges in
C the departmental proceedings were inquired into by the
   Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Department
  examined ten witnesses; and fourteen documents were
  produced. On the side of the defence, D.W. 1 and D.W. 2
  were examined. The Enquiry Officer found all tlJe three
D charges proved beyond reasonable doubt. P.Ws. 4 and
  5, the two Head Constables who had taken the
  respondent and the complainants to the Police; Station,
  and PW 6, the Head Constable of the Police:Station,
  clearly narrated the entire incident and the involvement
E of the respondent. The Enquiry Officer clearly c9ncluded
  that the evidence tendered by the P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 and
  the documentary evidence would clearly prove the
  various charges levelled against the delinq~ent. The
  Medical Officer of the Government Hospital had also
F certified that the delinquent had consumed liquor and did
  not cooperate for urine and blood tests. The
  Superintendant of Police, concurred with the findings of
  the Enquiry Officer and held that the charges were clearly
  proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was held that the
G respondent being a member of a disciplined force should
  not have behaved in a disorderly manner and that too in
  a drunken state, in a public place, and misbehaving with
  a married woman. The said conduct of the respondent
  would undermine the morale of the police force.
H Consequently, the Superintendant of Police awarded the
 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v. S.              177
               SAMUTHIRAM
punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent.        A
His departmental appeal was rejected by the Inspector
General of Police. [para 14 and 20) [187-D-H; 188-A-E;
191-G]

     1.2. In the criminal case before the Judicial 8
Magistrate, PW 1 and PW 2, the husband and the wife
(victim) turned hostile. Prosecution then did not take
steps to examine the rest of the prosecution witnesses.
The two Head Constables who took the respondent
along with PWs 1 and 2 to the Police Station were crucial C
witnesses, but the prosecution, took no step to examine
them, and so also the Doctor. It was under such
circumstances that the criminal court took the view that
there was no evidence to implicate the respondent-
accused, consequently, he was found not guilty uls 509
IPC read with s.4 of the Eve-Teasing Act and was, D
therefore, acquitted. That being the factual situation, the
respondent was not honourably acquitted by the criminal
court, but only due to the fact that PW 1 and PW 2 turned
hostile and other prosecution witnesses were not
examined. [para 15 and 20) [188-G; 189-B-C; 192-C]          E

    Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and
                            =
Another 1999 (2) SCR 257 (1999) 3 SCC 679; Southern
Railway Officers' Association v. Union of India 2009 (12)
SCR 429    = (2009) 9 SCC 24 ; State Bank of Hyderabad v.      F
P.Kata Rao 2008 (6) SCR 983     =   (2008) 15 sec 657; and
Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Raad Transport
Corporation v. M. G., Vittal Rao (2012) 1 SCC 442 - referred
to
     1.3. In Bhopal Singh Panchal*, this Court held that the   G
mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement
in service: the acquittal· has to be honourable. The
expressions 'honourable acquittal', 'acquitted of blame',
'fully exonerated' are unknown to the Code of Criminal
Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial      H
    178       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2012] 11 S.C.R.


A pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is
  meant by the expression 'honourably acquitted'. When the
  accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution
  evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to
  prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can
B possibly be said that the accused was honourably
  acquitted. [para 21] [192-E-G]

       *Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v.
  Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541; R.P. Kapoor v.
C Union of India 1964 SCR 431 =AIR 1964 SC 787; and State
  of Assam and another v. Raghava Rajgopalachari 1972 SLR
  45 - referred to.

          (1934) 61 ILR Cal. 168 - referred to.

D      1.4. In the absence of any provision in the service
   rules for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably
  acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the
  employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. It
   is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to
E establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a
  disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of
  probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a
  person is acquitted for technical reasons or the
  prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the
  other witnesses turned hostile etc. The issue whether an
F employee has to be reinstated in service or not depends
  upon the question whether the service rules contain any
  such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of
  right. Such provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu
  Service Rules. The High Court, in its limited jurisdiction
G under Art. 226 of the Constitution, was not justified in
  setting aside the punishment imposed upon the
  respondent in the departmental proceedings. The
  judgment of the High Court is set aside. [para 23-25 and
  33] [193-E, F-G; 194-D-E; 198-C]
H
 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v. S.             179
               SAMUTHIRAM
     2.1. Eve-teasing is a euphemism, a conduct which A
attracts penal action. Consequence of eve-teasing may,
at times, are disastrous, but it is seen, only in the State of
Tamil Nadu a statute has been enacted and that too has
no teeth. It has been noticed that there is no uniform law
to curb eve-teasing effectively. Eve-teasing generally B
occurs in public places which, with a little effort, can be
effectively curbed. Every citizen has right to live with
dignity arid honour which is a fundamental right
guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution. Sexual
harassment like eve-teasing of women amounts to c
violation of rights guaranteed under Arts. 14 and 15 as
well. [para 2, 26 and 30] [182-C; 194-G-H; 195-A-B; 196-B]

     2.3. It has been noticed that in the absence of effective
legislation to contain eve-teasing, normally, complaints
are registered u/s 294 or s.509 IPC, which has not been 0
proved to be an effective mechanism, rather filing of
complaint and to undergo a criminal trial itself is an agony
for the complainant, over and above the extreme physical
or mental agony already suffered. The necessity of a
proper legislation to curb eve-teasing is of extreme E
importance. [para 26, 28 and 30] [195-B-E-F; 196-B]

    Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan; (1977) 6 SCC
241; Rupan Deo/ Bajaj and Another v. K.P.S. Gill; 1995 (4)
                  =
Suppl. SCR 237 (1995) 6 SCC 194 - referred to                F

     The Indian Journal of Criminology and Crimina/istics
(January-June 1995 Edn.) - referred to

    2.4. Until suitable legislation to curb eve-teasing is G
enacted, it is necessary to take at least some urgent
measures so that it can be curtailed to some extent.
Therefore, this Court gives the following directions:

     (1) All the State Governments and Union Territories
     are directed to depute plain clothed female police      H
    180       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012] 11 S.C.R.


A         officers in the precincts of bus-stands and stops,
          railway stations, metro stations, cinema theatres,
          shopping malls, parks, beaches, public service
          vehicles, places of worship etc. so as to monitor and
          supervise incidents of eve-teasing.
B
          (2) The State Government and Union Territories will
          install CCTV in strategic positions which itself would
          be a deterrent and if detected, the offender could be
          caught.
c     (3) Persons in-charge of the educational institutions,
      places of worship, cinema theatres, railway stations,
      bus-stands have to take steps as they deem fit to
      prevent eve-teasing, within their precincts and, on a
      complaint being made, they must pass on the
D     information to the nearest police station or the
      Women's Help Centre.

      (4) Where any incident of eve-teasing is committed
      in a public service vehicle either by the passengers
E     or the persons in charge of the vehicle, the crew of
      such vehicle shall, on a complaint made by the
      aggrieved person, take such vehicle to the nearest
      police station and give information to the police.
      Failure to do so should lead to cancellation of the
F     permit to ply.

      (5) State Governments and Union Territories are
      directed to establish Women's Helpline in various
      cities and towns, so as to curb eve-teasing within
      three months.
G
      (6) Suitable boards cautioning such act of eve-
      teasing be exhibited in all public places including
      precincts of educational institutions, bus stands,
      railway stations, cinema theatres, parks, beaches,
H
 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v. S. 181
               SAMUTHIRAM
   public service vehicles, places of worship etc.           A

   (7) Responsibility is also on the passers-by and on
   noticing such incident, they should also report the
   same to the nearest police station or to Women
   Helpline to save the victims from such crimes.            8
   (8) The State Governments and Union Territories of
   India would take adequate and effective measures by
   issuing suitable instructions to the authorities
   concerned including the District Collectors and the
   District Superintendent of Police so as to take           C
   effective and proper measures to curb such
   incidents of eve-teasing. [para 32] [196-G; 197-A-H;
   198-A-B]

                   Case Law Reference:                       D
  1999 (2) SCR 257           referred to        para 7
  2009 (12) SCR 429          referred to        para 17
  2008 (6) SCR 983           referred to        para 18
                                                             E
  (2012) 1 sec 442           referred to        para 19
  (1994) 1 sec 541           referred to        para 21
  1964 SCR 431               referred to        para 22
                                                             F"
  1972 SLR 45                referred to        para 22
  (1934) 61 ILR Cal. 168     referred to        para 22
  (1977) 6 sec 241           referred to        para 31
  1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 237 referred to           para 31      G
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
8513 of 2012.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 26.10.2007 of the High
Court of Madras in WP No.13726 of 2004.                      H
    182       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 11 S.C.R.


A         C. Paramasivam, B. Balaji for the Appellants.

         V.N. Subramaniam, N. Vijakumar, V. Senthil Kumar, Balaji
    Srinivasan for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
          K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

       2. Eve-Teasing is a euphemism, a conduct which attracts
  penal action but it is seen; only in one State, a Statute has been
C enacted, that is State of Tamil Nadu to contain the same, the
  consequence of which may at times drastic. Eve-teasing led
  to the death of a woman in the year 1998 in the State of Tamil
  Nadu which led the Government bringing an ordinance, namely,
  the Tami Nadu Prohibition of Ev~-Teasing Ordinance, 1998,
  which later became an Act, namely, the Tamil Nadu Prohibition
0 of Eve-Teasing Act, 1998 [for short 'the Eve-Teasing Act']. The
  Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Eve-Teasing Act
  reads as follows:

               "Eve-teasing in public places has been a perennial
E       problem. Recently, incidents of eve-teasing leading to
        serious injuries to, and even death of a woman have come
        to the notice of the Government. The Government are of
        the view that eve-teasing is a menace to society as a whole
        and has to be eradicated. With this in view, the Government
F       decided to prohibit eve-teasing in the State of Tamil Nadu.

        2. Accordingly, the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Eve-teasing
        Ordinance, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 4 of 1998)
        was promulgated by the Governor and the same was
        published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette
G       Extraordinary, dated the 30th July, 1998.
        3. The Bill seeks to replace the said Ordinance."
     3. We are in this case concerned with a situation where a
H member of the law enforcement agency, a police personnel,
 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v. S.                     183
    SAMUTHIRAM [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
himself was caught in the act of eve-teasing of a married             A
woman leading to criminal and disciplinary proceeding, ending
in his dismissal from service, the legality of which is the subject
matter of this appeal.

      4. The respondent herein, while he was on duty at the           B
Armed Reserve, Palayamkottai was deputed for Courtallam
season Bandobust duty on 9.7.1999 and he reported for duty
on that date at 8.30 PM at the Courtallam Season Police out
post. At about 11.otl PM he visited the Tenkasi bus stand in a
drunken state and misbehaved and eve-teased a married lady,           C
who was waiting along with her husband, to board a bus. The
respondent approached that lady with a dubious intention and
threatened both husband and wife stating that he wo·uld book
a case against the husband unless the lady accompanied him.
Further, he had disclosed his identity as a police man. Both
husband and wife got panic and complained to a police man,            D
namely, Head Constable Adiyodi (No.1368) who was standing_
along with Head Constable Peter (No.1079) of Tenkasi Police
Station on the opposite side of the bus-stand. They were on
night duty at the bus stand. They rushed to the spot and took          •
the respondent into custody and brought him to Tenkasi Police         E
Station along with the husband and wife. Following that, a
complaint No.625/1999 was registered on 10.7.1999 at that
Police Station against the respondent under Section 509 of the
 Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Eve-teasing Act.
On 10.7.1999, at about 1.25 hrs., the respondent was taken to         F
the Government Hospital Tenkasi for medical examination.
There he was examined by Dr. N. Rajendran, who issued a
 Certificate of Drunkenness, which reads as follows:

     "Symptoms at the time of examination:
                                                                      G
     Breath smell of alcohol, Eye congested, Retina expanded,
     sluggish reaction to light, speech and activities normal,
     pulse rate 96, Blood pressure 122/85. I am of opinion that
     the above person:
                                                                      H
    184       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2012] 11 S.C.R.


A         (i) consumed alcohol but is not under its influence.

          Station: Tenkasi            Name: N. Rajendran
          Date: 10.07.1999            (Sd/- dt.10.07.1999)

                                                      Civil Surgeon
B
          I am not willing to undergo blood and urine test.

                                     Sd/- S. Samuthiram, PC 388"

       5. The respondent was then placed under suspension from
C 10.7.1999 (FN) as per D0.1360/1999 in C.No.P1/34410/1999
  vide order dated 18. 7.1999 and departmental proceedings
  were initiated under Rule 3(b) <>f the Tamil Nadu Police
  Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (in
  short 'Tamil Nadu Service Rules') for his highly reprehensible
D conduct in behaving in a disorderly manner to a married lady
  in a drunken state at Tenkasi bus stand on 9.7.1999. Further,
  it was also noticed that he was absent from duty from 07.00
  hrs on 10.7.1999 to 03.45 hrs .
•
E      6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve,
  Tiruneveli, conducted a detailed domestic enquiry and after
  examining ten prosecution witnesses and perusing fourteen
  prosecution documents and after hearing the defence
  witnesses, submitted a report dated 22.11.1999 finding all the
F charges proved against the delinquent respondent. The
  Superintendent of Police, Tiruneveli after carefully perusing the
  enquiry report dismissed the respondent from service on
  4.1.2000.

       7. The respondent, aggrieved by the dismissal order, filed
G O.A. No.1144 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative
  Tribunal, Chennai. While the O.A. was pending before the
  Tribunal, the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi rendered the judgment
  in S.T.C No.613 of 2000 on 20.11.2000 acquitting the
  respondent of all the charges. The judgment of the Criminal
H
 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v. S.                    185
    SAMUTHIRAM [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
Court was brought to the notice of the Tribunal and it was           A
submitted that, on the same set of facts, the delinquent be not
proceeded within the departmental proceeding. The judgment
of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines
Ltd. and Another (1999) 3 SCC 679 was also placed before
the Tribunal in support of that contention.                          B

      8. The Tribunal noticed that both, husband and wife,
deposed before the Enquiry Officer that the respondent had
committed the offence, which was supported by the other
 prosecution witnesses, including the two policemen who took         C
the respondent in custody from the place of incident.
 Consequently, the Tribunal took the view that no reliance could
.be placed on the judgment of the criminal court. The O.A. was
 accordingly dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated
 23.3.2004. The- order was challenged by the respondent in a         D
 Writ Petition No.13726 of 2004 before the High Court of
 Madras. The High Court took the view that if a criminal case
 and departmental proceedings against an official are based on
 the same set of facts and evidence and the criminal case ended
 in an honourable acquittal and not on technical grounds,
 imposing punishment of removal of the delinquent official from      E
 service, based on the findings of domestic enquiry would not
 be legally sustainable. The H~h Court also took the view that
 the version of the doctor who was examined as PW8 and Ext.
 P-4 certificate issued by him, could not be considered as
 sufficient material to hold the respondent guilty and that he had   F
 consumed alcohol, but was found normal and had no adverse
 influence of alcohol. The High Court, therefore, allowed the writ
 petition and set aside the impugned order dismissing him from
 service. It was further ordered that the respondent be reinstated
 with continuity of service forthwith, with back wages from the      G
 date of acquittal in the criminal case, till payment.

    9. The State, aggrieved by the said judgment has filed this
appeal by special leave through the Deputy Inspector General
of Police.
                                                                     H
    186         SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 11 S.C.R.


A         10. Shri C. Paramasivam, learned counsel appearing for
    the appellant, submitted that the High Court was not justified in
    interfering with disciplinary proceedings and setting aside the
    order of dismissal of the respondent. Learned counsel
    submitted that the High Court overlooked the fact that the
s   standard of proof in a domestic enquiry and criminal enquiry
    is different. The mere acquittal by the criminal Court does not
    entitle the delinquent for exonerating in the disciplinary
    proceedings. Learned counsel also submitted that the case in
    hand is not where punishment of dismissal was imposed on
c   the basis of conviction in a criminal trial and only, in such
    situation, acquittal by a Court in a criminal trial would have
    some relevance. Further, it was also pointed out that, in the
    instant case, the respondent was not honourably acquitted by
    the criminal Court, but was acquitted since complainant turned
    hostile.
0
          11. Shri V. N. Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing
  for the respondent, supported the findings recorded by the High
  Court. Learned counsel submitted that the judgment of the
  criminal court acquitting the respondent has to be construed as
E an honourable acquittal and that the respondent cannot be
  proceeded with on the same set of facts on which he was
  acquitted by a criminal court. Learned counsel also placed
  reliance on the judgment of this Court in Capt. M. Paul case
  (supra).
F
          12. We may first deal with the departmental proceedings
    initiated against the respondent.

    DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDINGS:

G        13. We may indicate that the following were the charges
    levelled against the respondent in the departmental
    proceedings and a charge memo dated 24.8.1999 was served
    on the respondent:

          (i)    Reprehensible conduct in having behaved in a
H
 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v. S.                   187
    SAMUTHIRAM [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
             disorderly manner in a drunkenness mood at             A
             Tenkasi Bus-stand on 9.7.1999 at 23.00 hrs.

     (ii)    Highly reprehensible conduct in eve-teasing
             Pitchammal (44/1999) W/o. Vanamamalai of
             Padmaneri in the presence of her husband and           8
             having approached her with a dubious intention on
             9. 7.1999 at 23.00 hrs. and thereby getting involved
             in a criminal case in Tenkasi P.S. Cr. No. 625/1999
             under Section 509 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil
             Nadu Prohibition of Eve-Teasing Ordinance Act,         C
             1998 and

     (iii)   Highly reprehensible conduct in having absented
             from duty from 10.7.1999 at 07.00 hrs onward till
             03.45 hrs.
                                                                 D
      14. The charges were inquired into by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve Tirunelveli. The
prosecution examined ten witnesses and fourteen documents
were produced. On the side of the defence, D.W. 1 and D.W.
2 were examined. After examining the witnesses on either side E
and after giving an opportunity of hearing, the Enquiry Officer
found all the three charges proved beyond reasonable doubt.
P.Ws. 4 and 5, who were Head Constables 1368 Adiyodi of
Tenkasi Police Station and Head Constable 1079 Peter of
Tenkasi Police Station, clearly narrated the entire incident and
                                                                 F
the involvement of the respondent, so also PW 6, the Head
Constable of Tenkasi Police Station. The Enquiry Officer clearly
concluded that the evidence tendered by the prosecution
witnesses P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 and prosecution documents 3, 4
and 5 would clearly prove the various charges levelled against
him. The Medical Officer of the Government Hospital had also G
certified that the delinquent had consumed liquor and he was
not cooperating for urine and blood tests. The Enquiry Officer
also found that the delinquent ought to have reported for duty
at the out-post station on 10.7.1999 at 07.00 hrs. as per the
instruction given to him on 9.7.1999 at 20.30 hrs., while he H
    188      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2012] 11 S.C.R.


A reported for courtallam season Bandobust duty at season out-
  post police station. But, it was found that the delinquent had
  failed to report for duty. Further, he had also indulged in the
  activity of eve-teasing a married woman. After finding the
  delinquent respondent guilty of all the charges, the Enquiry
B Officer submitted its report dated 22.11.1999. The
  Superintendant of Police, Tirunelveli concurred with the findings
  of the Enquiry Officer and held that the charges were clearly
  proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was held that the
  respondent being a member of a disciplined force should not
c have behaved in a disorderly manner and that too in a drunken
  state, in a public place, and misbehaving with a married woman.
  It was held that the said conduct of the respondent would
  undermine the morale of the police force, consequently, the
  Superintendant of Police awarded the punishment of dismissal
  from service on the respondent, vide its proceeding dated
0
  4.1.2000. The respondent then filed an appeal before the
  Inspector General of Police, which was rejected vide his
  proceeding dated 10.3.2000. Respondent then filed an
  application in O.A. No. 1144 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu
  Administrative Tribunal. While 0.A. was pending, the delinquent
E was acquitted of the criminal charges.

    CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS:

        15. We have indicated that a criminal case was also
F registered against the respondent by the Tenkasi Police Station
  being Crime No. 625/1999 under Section 509 IPC and Section
  4 of the Eve-Teasing Act, 1998, which was registered as STC
  613 of 2002 before the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi. Before the
  Criminal Court, PW 1 and PW 2, the husband and the wife
G (victim) turned hostile. Prosecution then did not take steps to
  examine the rest of the prosecution witnesses. Head Constable
  (No.1368) Adiyodi and Head Constable (No.1079) Peter of
  Tenkasi Police Station were crucial witnesses. Facts would
  clearly indicate that it was the above mentioned Head
H Constables who took the respondent to Tenkasi Police Station
 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v. S.                   189
    SAMUTHIRAM [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
along with P.Ws. 1 and 2, though P.Ws. 1 and 2 had clearly         A
deposed before the Enquiry Officer of the entire incident
including the fact that the above mentioned two Head
Constables had taken the respondent along with P.Ws.1 and
2 to the Tenkasi Police Station. The Criminal Court took the
view that since P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 turned hostile, the criminal     B
case got weakened. The prosecution, it may be noted also
took no step to examine the Head Constables by name 1368
Adiyodi and 1079 Peter of Tenkasi Police Station, so also the
Doctor P.W.8 before the criminal Court. It was under such
circumstances that the criminal Court took the view that there     c
is no evidence to implicate the respondent-accused,
consequently, he was found not guilty under Section 509 IPC
read with Section 4 of the Eve-Teasing Act and was, therefore,
acquitted.

     16. We may indicate that before the order of acquittal was    D
passed by the Criminal Court on 20.11.2000, the Departmental
Enquiry was completed and the respondent was dismissed
from service on 4.1.2000. The question is when the
departmental enquiry has been concluded resulting in the
dismissal of the delinquent from service, the subsequent           E
finding recorded by the Criminal Court acquitting the
respondent delinquent, will have any effect on the departmental
proceedings. The propositions which the respondent wanted
to canvass placing reliance on the judgment in Capt. M. Paul
Anthony case (supra) read as follows:                              F
          "(t) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in
    a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is
    no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though
    separately.
                                                                   G
          (i1) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal
    case are based on identical and similar set of facts and
    the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent
    employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated
    questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the   H
    190       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 11 S.C.R.


A         departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal
          case.

                (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case
          is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and
B         law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature
          of offence, the nature of the case launched against the
          employee on the basis of evidence and material collected
          against him during investigation or as reflected in the
          charge-sheet.
c               (iv) The factors mentioned at (i1) and (iii) above
          cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental
          proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that
          the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.

D               (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its
          disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental
          proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the
          pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and
          proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date,
E         so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may
          be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the
          administration may get rid of him at the earliest.•

        17. This Court, in Southern Railway Officers' Association
  v. Union of India (2009) 9 SCC 24, held that acquittal in a
F criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with
  an order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
  The Court reiterated that order of dismissal can be passed even
  if the delinquent officer had been acquitted of the criminal
  charge.
G
        18. In State Bank of Hyderabad v. P.Kata Rao (2008) 15
  SCC 657, this Court held that there cannot be any doubt
  whatsoever that the jurisdiction of the superior Courts in
  interfering with the finding of fact arrived at by the Enquiring
H Officer is limited and that the High Court would also ordinarily
 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v. S.                      191
    SAMUTHIRAM [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
not interfere with the quantum of punishment and there cannot A
be any doubt or dispute that only because the delinquent
employee who was also facing a criminal charge stands
acquitted, the same, by itself, would not debar the disciplinary
authority in initiating a fresh departmental proceeding and/or
where the departmental proceedings had already been B
initiated, to continue therewith. In that judgment, this Court further
held as follows:

           "The legal principle enunciated to the effect that on
     the same set of facts the delinquent shall not be proceeded
     in a departmental proceedings and in a criminal case C
     simultaneously, has, however, been deviated from. The
     dicta of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold
     Mines Ltd. and Another [(1999) 3 SCC 679], however,                   •
     remains unshaken although the applicability thereof had
     been found to be dependant on the fact situation obtaining D
     in each case."

     19. In a later judgment of this Court in Divisional Controller,
Kamataka State Raod Transport Corporation v. M.G., Vittal
Rao (2012) 1 SCC 442, this Court after a detailed survey of            E
various judgments rendered by this Court on the issue with
regard to the effect of criminal proceedings on the departmental
enquiry, held that the Disciplinary Authority imposing the
punishment of dismissal from service cannot be held to be
disproportionate or non-commensurate to the delinquency.               F

     20. We are of the view that the mere acquittal of an
employee by a criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary_
proceedings initiated by the Department. The respondent, it
may be noted, is a member of a disciplined force and non
examination of two key witnesses before the criminal court that G
is Adiyodi and Peter, in our view, was a serious flaw in the
conduct of the criminal case by the Prosecution. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility of
winning order P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the criminal case cannot be
ruled out. We fail to see, why the Prosecution had not examined H
        192      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 11 S.C.R.

    A Head Constables 1368 Adiyodi and 1079 Peter of Tenkasi
      Police Station. It was these two Head Constables who took the
      respondent from the scene of occurrence along with P.Ws. 1
      and 2, husband and wife, to the Tenkasi Police Station and it
      is in their presence that the complaint was registered. In fact,
    B the criminal court has also opined that the signature of PW 1
      (husband - complainant) is found in Ex.P1 - Complaint. Furth~-,
      the Doctor P.W.8 has also clearly stated before the Enquiry
      Officer that the respondent was under the influence of liquor
      and that he had refused to undergo blood and urine tests. That
    c being the factual situation, we are of the view that the
      respondent was not honourably acquitted by the criminal court,
      but only due to the fact that PW 1 and PW 2 turned hostile and
•     other prosecution witnesses were not examined .

        Honourable Acquittal
    D
           21. The meaning of the expression 'honourable acquittal'
      came up for consideration before this Court in Management
      of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal
      (1994) 1 SCC 541. In that case, this Court has considered the
    E impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by
      a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context,
      this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an
      employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held,
      has to be honourable. The expressions 'honourable acquittal',
    F 'acquitted of blame', 'fully exonerated' are unknown to the Code
      of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by
      judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what
      is meant by the expression 'honourably acquitted'. When the
      accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution
    G evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove
      the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be
      said that the accused was honourably acquitted.

          22. In R.P. Kapoor v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787, it
      was held even in the case of acquittal, departmental
    H proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than
 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v. S.                      193
    SAMUTHIRAM [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
honourable. In State of Assam and another v. Raghava                   A
Rajgopalaohari reported in 1972 SLR 45, this Court quoted
with approval the views expressed by Lord Williams, J. in
(1934) 61 ILR Cal. 168 which is as follows:

    "The expression "honourably acquitted" is one which is
                                                                       8
    unknown to oourt of justice. Apparently it is a form of order
    used in courts martial and other extra judicial tribunals. We
    said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation
    given by the appellant believed it to be true and
    considered that it ought to have been accepted by the
    Government authorities and by the magistrate. Further, we          C
    decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the
    monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the
    effect of our judgment was that the appellant was acquitted
    as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be
    acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what                  D
    Government authorities term 'honourably acquitted"'.

     23. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any
provision in the service rule for reinstatement, if an employee
is honourably acquitted by a Criminal Court, no right is               E
conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including
reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for
holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry
conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different.
In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the          F
accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be
innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required
to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a
disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is         G
sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for
technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses
since few of the other witnesses turned hostile etc. In the case
on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many
of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and        H
    194      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012] 11 S.C.R.


A his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the
  accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to
  say in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted
  by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to
  claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not
B provide so.

       24. We have also come across cases where the service
  rules provide that on registration of a criminal case, an
  employee can be kept under suspension and on acquittal by
C the criminal court, he be reinstated. In such cases, the re-
  instatement is automatic. There may be cases where the
  service rules provide in spite of domestic enquiry, if the criminal
  court acquits an employee honourably, he could be reinstated.
  In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be
  reinstated in service or not depends upon the question whether
D the service rules contain any such provision for reinstatement
  and not as a matter of right. Such provisions are absent in the
  Tamil Nadu Service Rules.

       25. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, we are
E of the View that the High Court was not justified in setting aside
  the punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings as
  against the respondent, in its limited jurisdiction under Article
  226 of the Constitution of India.

         26. We may, in the facts and circumstances of this case,
F wish to add some aspects which are also of considerable
  public importance. We notice that there is no uniform law in this
  country to curb eve-teasing effectively in or within the precinct
  of educational instiMions, places of worship, bus stands, metro-
  stations, railway stations, cinema theatres, parks, beaches,
G places of festival, public service vehicles or any other similar
  place. Eve-teasing generally occurs in public places which, with
  a little effort, can be effectively curbed. Consequences of not
  curbing such a menace, needless to say, at times disastrous.
  There are many instances where girls of young age are being
H harassed, which sometimes may lead to serious psychological
 DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v. S.                    195
    SAMUTHIRAM [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
problems and even committing suicide. Every citizen in this         A
country has right to live with dignity and honour which is a
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Sexual harassment like eve- teasing of
women amounts to violation of rights guaranteed under Articles
14, 15 as well. We notice in the absence of effective legislation   B
to contain eve-teasing, normally, complaints are registered
under Section 294 or Section 509 IPC.

     27. Section 294 says that "Whoever, to the annoyance of
others- (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b)
sings, recites or utters any obscene song; ballad or words, in      C
or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to tllree
months, or with fine, or with both".

     28. It is for the prosecution to prove that the accused        D
committed any obscene act or the accused sang, recited or
uttered any obscene song; ballad or words and this was done
in or near a public place, it was of obscene nature and that it
had caused annoyance to others. Normally, ii is very difficult to
establish those facts and, seldom, complaints are being filed       E
and_ criminal cases will take years and years and often people
get away with no punishment and filing complaint and to
undergo a criminal trial itself is an agony for the complainant,
over and above, the extreme physical or mental agony already
suffered.                                                           F
    29. Section 509 IPC says, 'Whoever intending to insult the
modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or
gesture, or exhibits any object, intending, that such word or
sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be
seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such           G
woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one year, or with fine or with both".
    30. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the
accused had uttered the words or made the sound or gesture          H
    196         SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012) 11 S.C.R.


A and that such word, sound or gesture was intended by the
  accused to be heard or seen by some woman, Normally, it is
  difficult to establish this and, seldom, woman files complaints
  and often the wrong doers are left unpunished even if complaint
  is filed since there is no effective mechanism to monitor and
B follow up such acts. The necessity of a proper legislation to curb
  eve-teasing is of extreme importance, even the Tamil Nadu
  Legislation has no teeth.

       31. Eve teasing today has become pernicious, horrid and
  disgusting practice. The Indian Journal of Criminology and
C Criminalistics (January-June 1995 Edn.) has categorized eve
  teasing into five heads viz. (1) verbal eve teasing; (2) physical
  eve teasing; (3) psychological harassment; (4) sexual
  harassment; and (5) harassment through some objects. In
  Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan; (1977) 6 SCC 241,
D this Court has laid down certain guidelines on sexual
  harassments. In Rupan Deo/ Bajaj and Another v. K.P.S. Gill;
  (1995) 6 SCC 194, this Court has explained the meaning of
  'modesty' in relation to women. More and more girl students,
  women etc. go to educational institutions, work places etc. and
E their protection is of extreme importance to a civilized and
  cultured society. The experiences of women and girl children
  in over-crowded buses, metros, trains etc. are horrendous and
  a painful ordeal.

F      32. The Parli13ment is currently considering the Protection
  of Woman against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010,
  which is intended to protect female workers in most workplaces.
  Provisions of that Bill are not sufficient to curb eve-teasing.
  Before undertaking suitable legislation to curb eve-teasing, 1t,
G is necessary to take at least some urgent measures so that it
  can be curtailed to some extent. In public interest, we are
  therefore inclined to give the following directions:
            '
          (1) All the State Governments and Union Territories are
          directed to depute plain clothed female police officers in
H         the precincts of bus-stands and stops, railway stations,
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v. S.                   197
   SAMUTHIRAM [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
  metro stations, cinema theatres, s~opping malls, parks,          A
  beaches, public service vehicles, places of worship etc.
  so as to monitor and supervise incidents of eve-teasing.

 (2) There will be a further direction to the State
 Government and Union Territories to install CCTV in               8
 strategic positions which itself.y,.iould be a deterrent and if
 detected, the offender could be caught.

  (3) Persons in-charge of the educationalinstitutions, places
  of worship, cinema theatres, railway stations, bus-stands
  have to take steps as they deem fit to prevent eve-teasing,      C
  within their precincts and, on a complaint being made, they
  must pass on the information to the nearest police station
  or the Women's Help Centre.

  (4) Where any incident of eve-teasing is committed in a          D
  public service vehicle either by the passengers or the
  persons in charge of the vehicle, the crew of such vehicle
  shall, on a complaint made by the aggrieved person, take
  such vehicle to the nearest .police station and give
  information to the police. Failure to do so should lead to       E
  cancellation of the permit to ply.

  (5) State Governments and Union Territories are directed
  to establish Women' Helpline in various cities and towns,
  so as to curb eve-teasing· within three months.
                                                                   F
 (6) Suitable boards cautioning such act of eve-teasing be
 exhibited in all public places including precincts of
 educational institutions, bus stands, railway stations,
 cinema theatres, parks, beaches, public service vehicles,
 places of worship etc.                                    G
 (7) Responsibility is also on the passers-by and on noticing
 such incident, they should also report the same to the
 nearest police station or to Women Helpline to save the
 victims from such crimes.
                                                                   H
    198       SUPREME ·COURT REPORTS               [2012] 11 S.C.R.


A         (8) The State Governments and Union Territories of India
          would take adequate and effective measures by issuing
          suitable instructions to the concerned authorities including
          the District Collectors and the District Superintendent of
          Police so as to take effective and proper measures to curb
B         such incidents of eve-teasing.

         33. The Appeal is accordingly allowed with the above
    directions and the judgment of the High Court is set' aside.
    However, there will be no order as to costs.
C R.P.                                              Appeal allowed.