THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & Anr. v. S. SAMUTHIRAM

Judgment

11 S.C.R. 174 A B THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANR. v. S. SAMUTHIRAM (Civil Appeal No. 8513 of 2012) NOVEMBER 30, 2012 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Service Law: c 0 E 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 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 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 B 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? 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

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]