1

ITEM NO.103
SECTION XII

COURT NO.11
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).

I N D I A

1958/2009

R.G., HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, MADRAS

Appellant(s)
VERSUS
K.MUTHUKUMARASAMY
Respondent(s)
(OFFICE REPORT)
WITH
C.A. NO. 1964/2009
(WITH OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 06/08/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL

For Appellant(s)
CA 1958/09 & rr in
CA 1964/09

Dr. Rajeev B. Masodkar, Adv.

Mr. Anil K. Jha, Adv.

CA 1964/09

Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Mihir Samson, Adv.
Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Arjun Singh Bhati, Adv.

Mr. Raghenth Basant, Adv.
Ms. Liz Mathew, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the

following

O R D E R
terms

of

the

The

appeals

shall

stand

allowed

in

signed order.

[VINOD LAKHINA]

[SNEH

LATA SHARMA]

COURT MASTER

MASTER
Signature Not Verified

COURT

Digitally signed by
Vinod Lakhina
Date: 2014.08.08
16:53:16 IST
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]

Reason:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).

1958 OF 2009

REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT MADRAS

...APPELLANT

VERSUS
K.MUTHUKUMARASAMY

...RESPONDENT
WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.

1964 OF 2009

G. PUSHKALA

...APPELLANT
VERSUS

K.MUTHUKUMARASAMY & ANR.

...RESPONDENTS

ORDER
Both

these

appeals

being

directed

against the judgment and order dated 20th

June,

2007

passed

by

the

High

Court

of

Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No.

29024 of 2003 were heard together and are
being disposed of by this common order.

Civil Appeal No.1958 of 2009 has been

filed by the Registrar General, High Court

of

Judicature

at

Madras

whereas

Civil

Appeal No.1964 of 2009 has been filed by

the complainant - G. Pushkala challenging
the aforesaid order of the High Court by
which

the

punishment

of

Compulsory

Retirement imposed on the respondent - K.

Muthukumarasamy
and

the

has
said

been

interfered

respondent

with

has

been

exonerated of the charges leveled against

him.
We
learned

have

heard

Senior

Mr.

Counsel

Anand

Grover,

appearig

for

the

appellant in Civil Appeal No.1964 of 2009;

Dr.

Rajeev

B.

appearing

Masodkar,

Appeal

for

the

No.1958

of

learned
appellant

counsel

2009;

Civil

Mr.

Arjun

and

in

Singh Bhati, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent -

K. Muthukumarasamy.
3

By

memo

dated

5th

June,

2000,

following two charges were brought against

the respondent/delinquent.
"CHARGE NO.1.
That you, Thiru. K. Muthukumarasamy,
Deputy Registrar, now on deputation as
Deputy Registrar, Tribunal under Criminal
Law Amendment Act, Chennai, had behaved in
an improper manner with Tmt. G. Pushkala,
P.A. to Hon'ble Judges, while she was
working as P.A. on deputation in the said
Tribunal by issuing two slips to her

containing the following words:

'...... I want to kiss on cheeks, chin
and lips....'
and this amounts to a demand or request
for sexual favours and sexual harassment
at the place of work and thereby you
outraged her modesty and caused mental
torture
and
agony
to her and
thus
committed the acts of misconduct and
conduct unbecoming of a Goernment Servant
for which you are liable to be punished
under
the
Tamil
Nadu Civil
Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
CHARGE NO.2:
That
you, Thiru.
K. Muthukumarasamy,
Deputy Registrar, now on deputation as
Deputy Registrar, Tribunal under Criminal
Law Amendment Act, Chennai, while Tmt. G.
Pushkala, P.A. to Hon'ble Judges, was
working as P.A. on deputation in the said
Tribunal,
called
her house
in
the
midnights and caused mental torture and
agony to her and that even after her
transfer from the said Tribunal, you had
harassed her again and again by words and
deeds, thereby outraged her modesty and
caused mental torture and agony to her and
thus committed the acts of misconduct
unbecoming of a Government Servant for
which you are liable to be punished under
the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules."

The

respondent/delinquent

K.

Muthukumarasamy denied the charges leveled

against

him

and

submitted

his

written

statement which led to the holding of a

disciplinary proceeding against him.

In

the

six

course

of

the

said

proceeding,

witnesses were examined in support of the

charges

leveled

and

large

number

of

documents

were

also

exhibited.

The

respondent - K. Muthukumarasamy i.e. the

delinquent also examined one witness and
exhibited certain documents in support of
his case.

The defence, it may be noticed

at this stage, was to the effect that the

two slips of paper which were claimed to
have been handed over to the complainant
by the delinquent (Exhibits P-2 and P-3)
were

actually

part

of

his

preparation/collection of materials for a

dissertation

which

the

delinquent

was

preparing in connection with his Master of

Laws

examination.

delinquent,
missing

According
the

from

to

aforesaid

his

drawer

slips
and

the
were

despite

searching for the same he could not locate

the said slips.

The further defence of

the delinquent was that the complainant

had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from his
wife and it is to avoid the said loan that
the false story of sexual harassment on
the basis of the slips of paper marked as
Exhibit
her.

P-2

and

P-3

were

introduced

by

Referring to the second charge, it

is the defence of the delinquent that he

had made phone calls to the complainant in
connection

with

the

loan

that

she

had

taken from his wife.

The

Enquiry

Officer

returned

verdict of guilt against the delinquent.

The said report, after a copy thereof was
furnished

to

the

delinquent

explanations

obtained,

the

Chief

learned

was

and

his

considered

Justice

of

by

the

High

Court who by an elaborate order came to

the

conclusion

that

the

charges

against

the delinquent, as found by the Enquiry

Officer, were indeed proved.
Chief

Justice

facts

of

impose

of

The learned

the
the

retirement

the

case

High

Court

thought

it

punishment

the

proper

of

which

in

to

compulsory

punishment

was

communicated to the delinquent by an order

of the learned Registrar General of the
High Court dated 10th October, 2002.
Against
Retirement

the
imposed

order
by

of
the

Compulsory
Disciplinary

Authority, the delinquent moved the High

Court

by

registered
2003.

instituting
as

Earlier

Writ

writ

Petition

proceeding

thereto,

No.29024
the

of

complainant

had filed another Writ Petition i.e. Writ

Petition No.10157 of 2000 seeking certain
declarations, particularly, with regard to
the constitution of a Committee to go into
the

cases

of

sexual

harassment

in

the

Registry of the High Court.

Petitions
While

Both the Writ

to

Writ

Petition

the

came

be

heard

together.

filed

by

the

complainant was dismissed, the one filed

by the delinquent was allowed giving rise
to the present appeals before us.

A
order

reading

of

the

of
High

the

very

Court

elaborate

would

seem

to

indicate that the High Court thought it

proper to reverse the penalty imposed on
the

ground

Enquiry

that
Officer

the

findings

and

the

of

the

Disciplinary

Authority leading to the impugned order of

punishment

were

unacceptable.

highly

improbable

The

contents

and
of

the

dissertation marked as Exhibit D-14 were

referred to the impugned judgment and the
striking familiarity of the language used
therein with the contents of Exhibit P-2
9
and

P-3

were

taken

into

account

by

the

to

the

High Court to come to the conclusion that

the charges of handing over of slips of
paper as act of sexual harassment were not
proved. The High Court, in the face of the
admission of the delinquent that he had
made the phone calls to the complainant,
accepted

the

explanation

offered

effect

that

connection

such
with

complainant.

phone
the

calls

loan

in

by

the

taken

were

It is on the aforesaid broad

basis that the High Court had thought it

proper to exercise its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to

reverse

Officer

as

the

findings

accepted

of

by

the

the

Enquiry

Disciplinary

Authority and the consequential punishment

imposed on the delinquent. In this regard,
the High Court seems to have understood
certain observations made by this Court in
Mathura Prasad vs. Union of India [(2007)
1 SCC 437] to mean that findings of fact
recorded in a disciplinary enquiry would
be open to challenge even when errors may
not be apparent on the face of the record.

We
elaborate

have

read

and

order

passed

considered
by

the

the

learned

Chief Justice of the High Court, acting as

the Disciplinary Authority, accepting the
findings of the enquiry and imposing the
punishment in question.
Justice

in

his

The learned Chief

order

has

discussed

the

evidence of all the six witnesses examined

in

support

categorically

of
held

the
that

charges
the

and
evidence

has
of

PW-1-

complainant

and

stood

corroborated

PW-3,

PW-4,

by

the

husband

evidence

and

of

PW-6

of

who

are

delinquent. The

Chief

specifically

her

the

PW-5

co-employees
learned

PW-2-

Justice
recorded

had
his

also

reasons

for

exercise

of

holding that the issue with regard to the

similarity of the contents of dissertation
with the contents of Exhibit P-2 and P-3
would be immaterial in the present case.

Undoubtedly,
the

writ

would

the

jurisdiction,

have

disturb

in

the

the

power

findings

and

of

fact

High

court

competence

to

so

long

such

findings are opposed to the weight of the

materials
cannot

on
be

record

and

sustained

consideration

of

the
on

such

view

taken

reasonable

materials.

This

wholesome power has to be exercised by the

High Courts only on a careful appraisal
of the facts of a given case. Care must
be taken.

Not to act as a Court of Appeal

or in review of the decisions of the fact

finding authority.

The decision of this

Court in Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of

Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (1999) 7
SCC

739

learned

(Para
counsel

51)
for

relied

upon

the

respondent

by

the
is

coincidentally to the above effect.

It

also appears to us from the order of the

High Court that additional materials not
produced before the Enquiry Officer were
also considered by the learned Judges in
coming to the impugned conclusions. It
is, therefore, clear that the High Court
had exceeded its jurisdiction in coming to
the impugned findings with regard to the
culpability
of
the
delinquent
reversing

the

order

of

and

in

Compulsory

Retirement.

We, therefore, set aside the order

of the High Court; allow both the appeals
and restore the order of the Disciplinary
Authority,

namely,

the

compulsory

retirement of the respondent - delinquent

employee

with

effect

from

the

date

on

which it was made.

We
pendency

are
of

respondent

told

the

that
present

delinquent

during

the

appeals

the

employee

completed the period of his service.

has
What

should be the consequences that should now

visit

the

delinquent

including

his

pensionary entitlements is a matter that

10

we

leave

to

Disciplinary

the
Authority

discretion
which

of
power

the
will

naturally be exercised in accordance with

known principles of law in this regard.

Both

the

appeals

shall

stand

allowed in terms of the above.

....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
....................,J.
(M.Y. EQBAL)
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 06, 2014

11