Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shankar Lal Hindolia vs Union Of India Ministry Of Civil ... on 10 February, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2863
1 WP-26518-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 10th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 26518 of 2021
SHANKAR LAL HINDOLIA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Alok Katare - Advocate for respondents No.2, 3 and 4.
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties matter is heard finally.
2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:
"i. The respondent be directed to consider the case of petitioner
on the post of General Manager (Commercial) we.f. 19.01.2011 and
Executive Director from 19.01.2016;
ii. That the respondent be directed to disburse the financial
benefits w.e.f. 20.01.2010 for Jt. General Manager;
iii. That the respondent be directed to disburse the Earned Leave
of petitioner and disburse for the period 2008-2019 i.e. the date of
acquittal order passed by the Ld. Trial Court;
iv. That all other consequential relief may also be granted to
petitioner;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2863
2 WP-26518-2021
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts
and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted."
3. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a
Senior Commercial Manager in the respondent Department on 15.2.1996. One
false and fabricated criminal case has been instituted against the petitioner for the
offence under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468, 471 of IPC and under
Sections 13(2), 13(1)(a), 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, which was
decided vide judgment dated 13.8.2019 passed by 12th Additional Special Judge
For CBI Cases, Chennai in C.C. No.5/2010. Accordingly, he has been acquitted
from all the charges. On 27.8.2019, petitioner has preferred a representation
before respondent authorities to consider his case for promotion as he has been
honorably acquitted in the criminal case. Although the petitioner is entitled for
promotion of the General Manager (Commercial), but he has not been extended
the said benefit. Surprisingly juniors of the petitioner have been extended to the
said benefit. Respondents have utterly failed to consider his case in the light of
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.V.
Jankiraman reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010 . Being aggrieved by the aforesaid,
petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
4. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and
prayed for its rejection by submitting in their return that petitioner was joined as
Senior Manager (Commercial) in AAI in the year 1996. In the DPC of year 2004,
petitioner was considered and promoted as Deputy General Manager
(Commercial) w.e.f. 16.6.2004. He became eligible for promotion to the post of
Joint General Manager (Commercial) in the year 2007, but no DPC was
conducted in the year 2007-08. In the year 2009, case of the petitioner was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2863
3 WP-26518-2021
considered for the post of Joint General Manager (Commercial), however,
promotion order could not be issued as a CBI case has been pending against the
petitioner before Additional Special Judge For CBI Cases, Chennai in the year
2009 and recommendation of DPC was kept in a sealed cover. Thereafter,
petitioner has been acquitted and in the light of above judgment, the Competent
Authority has approved the petitioner's case for promotion without any financial
benefit for the past period to the post of Joint General Manager (Commercial)
w.e.f. 20.1.2010 and vide order dated 29.9.2020 by opening the sealed cover,
seniority of the petitioner was fixed. Review DPC has been conducted to rectify
certain mistakes and Competent Authority has decided the same on 9.3.2021.
Petitioner has been superannuated from the services on 31.7.2021, therefore, now
the petitioner is not entitled for aforesaid financial benefits and this petition
deserves to be dismissed.
5. Both the parties are heard at length and perused the entire record with
due care.
6. It is to be noted that in the instant case, admittedly petitioner placed
under suspension, but he was never subjected to any departmental enquiry
and no criminal appeal has been filed against the order of acquittal. He has
been reinstated after his acquittal and his promotions were withheld in view
of pendency of criminal case. Though later on he was acquitted, but some of
retiral benefits and promotions are denied on the ground that his acquittal is
not honorable acquittal.
7. Counsel for the petitioner contended that after the full trial petitioner got
acquitted, no criminal appeal has been filed against the same. There is no
classification between honorable acquittal and acquittal based upon the benefit of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2863
4 WP-26518-2021
doubt. An acquittal is always acquittal, therefore, petitioner is entitled for
promotion and all other financial benefits.
8. But Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bank of India & Ors. vs. Xavier
Moni passed in W.A. (MD) No.933/2021 decided on 2.3.2023 described the
honorable acquittal as under:
"24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal" came
up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh
Panchal [RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994
SCC (L&S) 594]. In that case, this Court has considered the
impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a
criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this
Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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.'' ....''
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Jaipal
Singh reported in AIR 2004 SC 1005 has held that "we are in respectful
agreement with the view taken in [1996] 11 SCC 603 (supra). If prosecution,
which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the person concerned was at the
behest or by department itself, perhaps different considerations may arise. On
the other hand, if as a citizen the employee or a public servant got involved
in a criminal case and it after initial conviction by the trial court, he gets
acquittal on appeal subsequently, the department cannot in any manner be
found fault with for having kept him out of service, since the law obliges, a
person convicted of an offence to be so kept out and not to be retained in
service. Consequently, the reasons given in the decision relied upon, for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2863
5 WP-26518-2021
appellants are not only convincing but are in consonance with
reasonableness as well. Though exception taken to that part of the order
directing re-instatement cannot be sustained and the respondent has to be re-
instated, in service, for the reason that the earlier discharge was on account
of those criminal proceedings and conviction only, the appellants are well
within their rights to deny back wages to the respondent for the period he
was not in service. The appellants cannot be made liable to pay for the period
for which they could not avail of the services of the respondent. The High
Court, in our view, committed a grave error, in allowing back wages also,
without adverting to all such relevant aspects and considerations.
Consequently, the order of the High Court in so far as it directed payment of
back wages are liable to be and is hereby set aside."
10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Narain vs. Union of India &
Ors. reported in AIR Online 2019 SC 155 held that "if an employee is
involved in embezzlement of funds or is found indulging in demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification, the employer cannot be mulcted with full
back wages on the acquittal of the person by a criminal Court, unless it is
found that the prosecution is malicious." But in the instant case, petitioner did
not make any averment of malice and he did not produce any evidence that
he has been maliciously implicated in a criminal prosecution.
11. From perusal of para 439 of judgment dated 13.8.2019 passed by
12th Additional Special Judge for CBI case Chennai in Cases No.5/2010, it
appears that Trial Court has recorded the acquittal of the petitioner stating
that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2863
6 WP-26518-2021
doubt. The petitioner faced the prosecution by CBI and got acquitted on the
technical ground of failure to produce certain documents and improper
investigation, therefore, petitioner cannot be classified under the honorable
acquittal. This Court is aware that deemed fiction of acquittal 'not proved
beyond reasonable doubt' and 'honourable acquittal' invented for the purpose
of service jurisprudence where even if the Department has not initiated
disciplinary proceedings consequence to the criminal prosecution, the
outcome of the criminal prosecution will have no bearing on the
departmental proceedings and the petitioner who has faced the criminal
prosecution cannot be extended all the benefits.
12. On the basis of aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court,
this Court is of the considered opinion that although the petitioner has been
acquitted in criminal case, but his acquittal is not a honorable acquittal and
apart from that petitioner has failed to prove that he has been falsely
implicated in the criminal prosecution due to some malice, therefore,
petitioner is not entitled for his original seniority and promotion based upon
such seniority as he was remain out of service for the aforesaid period or did
not pursue his performance for next promotions in comparison to the officers
who were promoted on the basis of their work performance and other
eligibility criteria prescribed for the promotions. Reinstatement of petitioner
in the service has already been ordered by the respondents.
13. The only question for consideration is that whether he is entitled
for back-wages or not?
14. It is the conduct of the petitioner involving himself in a crime that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2863
7 WP-26518-2021
was taken into account for not being in service of the respondents consequent
upon his acquittal. Although he is entitled for reinstatement in service, but
the question of back-wages would be considered only if respondents have
taken action by way of disciplinary action and the action was found to be
unsustainable in the eye of law and he was unlawfully prevented from
discharging his duties, but in the instant matter since the petitioner had
involved himself in a crime and he was disabled himself from rendering
services on account of incarceration in jail and suspension during the
aforesaid criminal trial.
15. Under these circumstances, petitioner is not entitled for any
promotion and benefits of payment of back-wages. Resultantly, this petition
sans merit, substance and is accordingly, dismissed.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
