DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS vrs CRIMINAL TRIAL, PART XXVII

SOME REFLECTIONS IN INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE JURISPRUDENCE : DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS VRS CRIMINAL TRIAL,THE CONCEPT OF PROPORTIONALITY OF PUNISHMENT IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE : AN APEX JUDICIAL DICTUM : PART – XXVII

AJAYA KUMAR SAMANTARAY

PRELUDE :??? The present case – law, intended to be discussed in this article, is quite distinct from the case – laws already discussed hereinbefore. This case – law involved a policeman who is a member of the law enforcement agency but in a drunken state he eve – teased a married lady. The policeman was dismissed from services and the case ultimately reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On reading this article the esteemed readers would know the following propositions :

??????????? (i)???????? Departmental Proceedings against a Policeman : Charges of eve – teasing.

??????????? (ii)??????? Dismissal from service on the charge of eve – teasing being proved.

??????????? (iii)?????? Criminal Proceedings against the policeman under Section 509 IPC :?Acquittal of the policeman.?

??????????? (iv)?????? Acquittal in the Criminal Case : Will it impact the disciplinary proceedings ?

??????????? (v)??????? Interference by the High Court in Departmental Proceedings and setting aside??the order of dismissal : Whether proper ??

THE CASE – LAW :

DY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE vrs S SAMUTHIRAM [2012 (5) LLN 576 : 2013 (136) FLR 99 : www.indianaknoon.org/doc/48772166] DoJ : 30 NOVEMBER 2012

FACTS OF THE CASE :

??????????? One, Shri S. Samuthiram was a member of Tamilnadu Armed Reserve Policeforce at Pallayamkottai. He was deputed for Courtallam Season Bandobust duty on 9 July 1999 and he reported for duty on that date at 8.30 PM at the Courtallam Season Police outpost. At about 11.00 PM he visited Tenkasi bus stand in a drunken state and misbehaved and eve – teased a married lady, who was waiting along with her husband, to board a bus. The delinquent approached that lady with a dubious intention and threatened the husband and wife stating that he would book a case against the husband unless the lady accompanied him. Further, he had disclosed his identity as a policeman. Both husband and wife got panic and complained to a policeman, namely, Head Constable Adiyodi ( No. 1368) who was standing 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 delinquent into custody and brought him to Tenkasi Police Station along with the husband and wife. Following that, a complaint bearing no. 625/1999 was registered on 10 July 1999 at that Police Station against the delinquent under Section 509 IPC and under Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Prohibition of Eve – teasing Act, 1998. On 10 July 1999 at about 1.25 hrs, the delinquent was taken to the Government Hospital for medical examination. There, he was examined by Dr. N Rajendran, who issued a Certificate of Drunkenness, which reads as follows :

“Symptom at the time of examination

Breath smell of alcohol, Eye congested, Retina expanded, sluggish reaction to light, speech and activity normal, pluse rate 96, Blood Pressure 122/85, I am of the opinion that the above person:

(i)? Consumed alcohol but is not under its influence

Station : Tenkasi???????????????????????????????? Name : N Rajendran

Date : 10.7.1999???????????????????????????????? (Sd/- dt. 10.07.1999)

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Civil Surgeon

I am not willing to undergo blood and urine test

Sd/- S Samuthiram, PC 388”

??????????? The delinquent was then placed under suspension from 10 July 1999 (FN) as per DO. 1360/1999 in C. No. P1/34410/1999 vide order dated 18 July 1999 and departmental proceedings were initiated under Rule 3 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1953 (in short ‘Tamil Nadu Service Rules’) for his highly reprehensible 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 3.45 hrs.

??????????? The Dy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Tirunelveli 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 November 1999 finding all the charges proved against the delinquent. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli after carefully perusing the enquiry report dismissed the delinquent from service ph 4 January 2000.?

??????????? The delinquent, having felt aggrieved by the dismissal order, filed an Original Application bearing No. 1144 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. While the Original Application was pending before the Tribunal, the Judicial Magiststrate, Tenkasi rendered the judgment in S. T. C. No. 613 of 2000 on 20 November 2000 acquitting the delinquent of all the charges. The judgment of the criminal court was brought to the notice of the Tribunal and it was submitted that on the same set of facts, the delinquent be not proceeded with in the departmental proceedings. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Captain M Paul Anthony vrs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and another [1999 (82) FLR 627] was also placed before the Tribunal in support of that contention.

??????????? The Tribunal noticed that both, husband and wife, deposed before the Enquiry Officer that the delinquent has committed the offence, which was supported by the other prosecution witnesses, including the two policeman who took the delinquent 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 March 2004.

Writ Petition before the High Court :

??????????? The delinquent, having felt aggrieved by dismissal of his Original Application by CAT, approached the High Court by filing a writ petition bearing No. 13726 of 2004. 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 on the delinquent official from service, based on findings of domestic enquiry would not be legally sustainable.

??????????? The High Court also took the view that the version of the doctor who was examined as PW 8 and Ext. P- 4 certificate issued by him, could not be considered as sufficient material to hold the delinquent guilty and that he has consumed alcohol, but was found normal and had no adverse influence of alcohol. The High Court, thereafter, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dismissing the delinquent from service. It was further ordered that the delinquent be reinstated with continuity of service forthwith, with back wages from the date of acquittal in the criminal case, till payment.

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT :

??????????? The State of Tamil Nadu, having felt aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court, filed a Special Leave Petition, in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which, on grant of special leave became Civil Appeal No. 8513 of 2012.

Submissions on behalf of the State :

??????????? The counsel, appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu, urged the following submissions.

??????????? (i)???????? ? That the High Court was not justified in interfering with the disciplinary ?proceedings and setting aside the order of the dismissal of the delinquent.

??????????? (ii)??????? That the High Court overlooked the fact that the standard of proof in a?domestic enquiry and criminal trial is different.?

??????????? (iii)?????? That the mere acquittal by the criminal court does not entitled the delinquent?for exonerating in the disciplinary proceedings.?

??????????? (iv)?????? That the case in hand is not where punishment of dismissal was imposed on??the basis of conviction in a criminal trial and only, in such a situation, acquittal by a??court in a criminal trial would have some relevance.?

??????????? (v)??????? That in the instant case the delinquent was not honourably acquitted since complainant turned hostile.?

Counter – submissions on behalf of delinquent :

??????????? The Counsel for the delinquent, to the contrary advanced the following submissions :

??????????? (i)???????? That the judgment of the Criminal Court acquitting the delinquent has to be construed as an honourable acquittal.

??????????? (ii)??????? That the delinquent cannot be proceeded with on the same set of facts on??which he was acquitted by a criminal court. The counsel placed reliance on??Captain M Paul Anthony’s case (supra).?

APPRECIATION OF CONTENTIONS :

??????????? The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on appreciation of the submissions and counter – submissions, first, proceeded to deal with departmental proceedings initiated against the delinquent.

The charges :

??????????? The following charges were levelled against the delinquent :

??????????? (i)???????? Reprehensible conduct is having behaved in a disorderly manner in a ??????? drunkenness mood at Tenkasi bus – stand on 9.7.1999 at 23.00 hrs.

??????????? (ii)??????? Highly reprehensible conduct in eve – teasing Pitchamal (44/1999) w/o ?Vanammamalai of Padmaneri in the presence of her husband and having??approached her with a dubious intention on 9.7.1999 at 23.00 hours and thereby? getting involved in a criminal case in Tenkasi P. S. Cr No. 625/1999 under Section??509? IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Eve – Teasing Ordinance, 1998; and?

????????? (iii)???????? Highly reprehensible conduct in having absented from duty from (10 July?1999) 700 hrs onwards till 3.45 hrs.?

??????????? The charges were inquired into by the Dy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Tirunelveli. The prosecution examined ten witnesses and fourteen documents were produced. On the side of the defence, DW 1 and DW2 were examined. After examining the witnesses on either side and after giving opportunity of hearing, the Enquiry Officer found all the three charges proved beyond reasonable doubt PWs 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 the involvement of the delinquent, so also PW 6, the Head Constable of Tenkasi Police Station. The Enquiry Officer clearly concluded that the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses PWs 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 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 July 1999 at 7.00 hrs as per the instruction given to him on 9 July 1999 at 20.30 hrs, while he reported for courtallam season bandobast 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 guilty of all the charges, the Enquiry Officer submitted its report dated 22 November 1999. The Superintendent 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 delinquent 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. It was held that the said conduct of the delinquent would undermine the morale of the police force, consequently, the Superintendent of Police awarded the punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent, vide its proceedings dated 4 January 2000. The delinquent then filed an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, which was rejected vide his proceeding dated 10 March 2000. The delinquent then filed an application before CAT, Chennai in O. A. No. 1144 of 2000. While the O. A. was pending, the delinquent was acquitted of the criminal charges.

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS :

??????????? It has already been indicated that a criminal case was also registered against the delinquent by the Tenkasi Police Station being crime no. 625/1999 under Section 509, IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Eve – Teasing Act, 1999 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 (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 Constable who took the delinquent along with PWs 1 and 2 to the Tenkasi Police Station. The criminal court took the view that since PW 1 and PW 2 turned hostile, the criminal case got weakened. The prosecution, it may be noted, also took no step to examine the Head Constable by name 1368 Adiyodi and 1079 Peter of Tenkasi. Police Station, so also the doctor PW 8 before the criminal court. It was under such circumstances that the criminal court took the view that there is no evidence to implicate the delinquent accused, consequently, he was found not guilty under Section 509 IPC read with Section 4 of the Eve Teasing Act, 1998 and was, therefore, acquitted.

Completion of Departmental Enquiry before Acquittal :

??????????? The esteemed readers may here note that before the order of acquittal was passed by the criminal court on 20 November 2000, the Departmental Enquiry was completed and the delinquent was dismissed from service on 4 January 2000. The question is when the departmental enquiry has been concluded resulting in the dismissal of the delinquent from service the subsequent finding, recorded by the criminal court acquitting the delinquent; will have any effect on the departmental proceedings. The propositions which the delinquent wanted to canvass placing reliance on the judgment in Capt. M Paul Anthony’s case (supra) read as follows :

??????????? (i)???????? ? Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.

??????????? (ii)??????? If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical?and similar set of facts and the charge in criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated question of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.

??????????? (iii)?????? Whether the nature of a charge in criminal case is grave and whether complicated question of fact and 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.

??????????? (iv)?????? The factors mentioned at (ii) 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.

??????????? (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, 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.

Reference to case – laws :

??????????? The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after extracting the salient features of the judgment in the case of Capt. M Paul Anthony (supra), referred to the following decisions of its own :

??????????? (i)???????? Southern Railway Officers’ Association vrs Union of India [2009 (23) FLR 417 : 2009 (4) LLN 665 : 2009-IV-LLJ-1 : 2009 (3) CLR 171 : 2009 SCLJ 695] In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that acquittal in a criminal case by itself can not be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that order of dismissal can be passed even if the ?delinquent officer has been acquitted of the criminal charge.

??????????? (ii)??????? State Bank of Hyderabad vrs P. Kata Rao [(2008) 15 SCC 657 : www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1971273] : In this case it was 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 Officer is limited and that the High Court would also ordinarily not interfere with the quantum of punishment and there cannot 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 initiated, to continue therewith. In that judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated 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 simultaneously, has, however, been deviated from. The dicta of this court in Capt. M Paul Anthony vrs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and another [1999 (82) FLR 627], however, remains unshaken although the applicability thereof had been found to be dependent on the fact situation obtaining in each case.

??????????? (iii)?????? Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vrs M. G. Vittal Rao [2012 (132) FLR 348 : 2012 (2) LLN 328 : AIRONLINE 2011 SC 401 : www.indiankanoon.org/doc/150524127] : While? dealing with this case, after a detailed survey of the judgments of its own, the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to the effect of criminal proceedings on the departmental enquiry, held that Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be held ???????? to be disproportionate or non – commensurate to the delinquency.

Impact of acquittal on disciplinary proceedings :

??????????? The Hon’ble Supreme Court told that it is 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 delinquent, it may be noted, is a member of a disciplined force and non – examination of two key – witnesses before the criminal court that is Adiyodi and Peter in the view of the Supreme Court, 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 PWs1 and 2 in the criminal case cannot be ruled out. The Hon’ble Supreme Court told that it fails to see any reason as to why the prosecution had not examined Head Constable 1368 Adiyodi and 1079 Peter of Tenkasi Police Station. It was these two Head Constables who took the delinquent from the scene of occurance alongwith PWs1 and 2 husband and wife, to the Tenkasi Police Station and it is their presence that the complaint was registered. In fact, the criminal court has also opined that the signature of PW1 (husband – complainant) is found in Ex. P1-complaint Further, the Doctor PW8 has also clearly stated before the Enquiry Officer that the delinquent was under the influence of liquor and that he refused to undergo blood and urine tests. That being the factual situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that the delinquent was not honourably acquitted by the criminal court, but only due to the fact that PWs 1 and 2 turned hostile and other prosecution witnesses were not examined.

Honourable Acquittal :

??????????? The meaning of the expression ‘honourable acquittal’ came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on Management of Reserve Bank of india, New Delhi vrs Bhopal Singh Panchal [1994 (68) FLR 22 : 1994-98 SCLJ (2) 961 : AIR 1994 SC 552 : (1994) 1 SCC 541 : JT 1993 (6) 266 : 1993 SCALE (4) 360 ]? In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the impact of Regulation 46 (4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, the Hon’ble Apex 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’, ‘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 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.

Reference to three more Judicial pronouncements :

??????????? The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the expression ‘honourable acquittal’, made reference to the following case – laws :

??????????? (i)???????? R. P. Kapoor vrs Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 787] : In this case it was held that even in case of acquittal, departmental proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable.

??????????? (ii)??????? State of Assam and another vrs Raghav Rajgopalchari [1972 SLR 45] : While dealing with this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to a decision wherein Lord Williams, J in ILR (1934) 61 Cal 168 has expressed the following view :

“The expression “honourably acquitted” is one which is unknown to court 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 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 Government authorities term “honourably acquitted”.

Whether any right is conferred on an employee for reinstatement when he/she is acquitted ?

??????????? The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that in 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. 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 establishment of the guilt of the 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 a settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in 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. 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 his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that it is not prepared to say in the instant case, the delinquent was honourably acquitted by the Criminal Court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Services Rules do not provide so.

??????????? The Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereafter, stated that it has also come across cases where the service rules provide that on registration of a criminal case, an employee can be placed under suspension and on acquittal by criminal court, he be reinstated. In such cases, the reinstatement 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 nor 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 Tamil Nadu Service Rules.

??????????? In view of the aforementioned circumstances the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the punishment imposed on the delinquent as per the findings in the departmental proceedings, in its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution.

ON EVE – TEASING :

??????????? The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, added some aspects which are also of considerable public importance. It was noticed that there is no uniform law in our country to curb eve – teasing effectively in or within the precincts of educational institutions, places of wordship, bus – stands, metro – stations, railway – stations, cinema theatres, parks, beaches, places of festival, public service vehicles or any other similar places. 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 harassed, which sometimes may lead to serious psychological problems and even committing suicide. Every citizen in this 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. In the absence of effective legislation to contain eve – teasing, normally complaints are registered under Section 294 or Section 509 IPC.

??????????? Here, it would be quite pertinent to extract Sections 294 and 509 Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the information and convenience of the esteemed readers :

Section 294 : Whoever, to the annoyance of others –

??????????? (a)??????? does any obscene act in any public place, or

??????????? (b)??????? sings, recites or utters any obscene songs, ballad or words, in or near any public ? place,? shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both.

??????????? It is for the prosecution to prove that the accused 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, it is very difficult to establish those facts, seldom, complaints are being filed 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.

Section 509 : Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such words or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine or with both.

??????????? The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused had uttered the words or made the sound or gesture 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 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.

??????????? Eve – teasing today has become pernicious, horrid and disgusting practice. The Indian Journal of criminology and criminalistics (January – June 1995 – Edu) has categorized eve – teasing into 5 heads viz. (1) verbal eve – teasing; (2) physical eve – teasing; (3) psychological harassment; (4) sexual harassment and (5) harassment through some objects. In Vishakha and others vrs State of Rajasthan [1997 (77) FLR 297] the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines on sexual harassment. In Rupan Deol Bajaj and another vrs KPS Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194] the Hon’ble Supreme 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 their protection is of extreme importance to a civilized and cultural society. The experience of women and girl children in over – crowded buses, metros. Trains etc. are horrendous and a painful ordeal.

??????????? The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that the Parliament is currently considering Protection of Woman against Sexual Harassment at Work – Place Bill, 2010, which is intended to protect female workers in most workplaces. Provisions of that Bill are not sufficient to curb eve – teasing. It is necessary to take at least some urgent measures so that it can be curtailed to some extent. In public interest, the Hon’ble Apex Court gave the following directions :

??????????? (1)??????? All the State Governments and Union Territories are directed to depute plain clothed female police officers to the precincts of bus – stand 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.

??????????? (2)??????? There will be a further direction to the state government and union territories to install CCTV in strategic positions which itself would be a deterrent and if detected the offender could be caught.

??????????? (3)??????? Persons in – charge of educational institutions, places of workship, cinema theatres, railway stations, bus – stands have to take steps as deem fit to prevent eve – teasing, 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 public service vehicle either by a passenger 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 permit to ply.

??????????? (5)??????? State Government and Union Territories are directed to establish Women’s Helpline in various cities and towns so as to curb eve – teasing within three months.

??????????? (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, parties, beaches, public service vehicles, places of worship etc.

??????????? (7)??????? Responsibility is also on the passers – by 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)??????? The State Government 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 such incidents of eve – teasing.

THE VERDICT :

??????????? 1.???????? The Appeal filed by the Dy Inspector General of Police was ALLOWED.

??????????? 2.???????? The judgment of the High Court ordering reinstatement of the delinquent was?SET ASIDE.