Paripoornan, J. - (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: "Miss Radha Bai, the appellant, was working as Assistant Director, local Administration Department, Govt. of Pondicherry. She made a written complaint before the Governor of Pondicherry wherein it was alleged that the Minister in-charge and other officers, named 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 into the allegation contained in the complaint filed before him by Radha Bai. The operative part of the order was as under: 'proceedings of the Governor of Tamil Nadu And Administrator of the Union Territory of Pondicherry. _____ Dated:22nd July, 1978. _____ Sub:Representation from Miss N. Radha Bai, Assistant Director, Local Administration Department. _____ After giving full consideration to the representation of Miss N.Radha 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 D.Ramachandran, Shri T. T. Joseph and Shri S. V. Ranganathan about the endeavours 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 Judicial Officer of the rank of District Judge be appointed to conduct the enquiry only for the above points. 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 Pondicherry Administration to hold an enquiry as directed by the Governor. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in dismissing the writ petition. Instead of doing substantial justice in the case the High 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 Pondicherry Government was valid and the Administration was bound by the same. We direct the Pondicherry Administration through 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 Judge shall give opportunity to Miss Radhabai and the person 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 Pondicherry and a copy of the same be sent to this Court. The appeals to be listed for further directions on 6-12-1994. Registry to send the copy of this order to the Chief Secretary and 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 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.;