RADHA BAI Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(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 Shri D.R. 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 Directorate. It is the appellant's case (supra), 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 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 was transferred from Pondicherry to Karaikkal. On an enquiry 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 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. 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 - Shri 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 an 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 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:

(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 (PWI-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 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.