Noting that acquittal granted on benefit of doubt is not an honourable acquittal, the Chhatisgarh High Court observed that benefts therefore can be restricted.
The single-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal while dismissing the petition filed by one such employee seeking full back wages, justified the Railway authorities stand which didn't grant him full wages during the suspension period.
Brief Facts of the Case
The petitioner herein who was a Head Constable in the Railway Protection Force seeks arrears of salary from 28-6-2005 to 26-3- 2008 and also for fixing his pensionary benefits on the basis of his last pay drawn by him. He was placed under suspension on 28-6-2005, as offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 & 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC were registered against him, but no departmental enquiry was initiated against him and ultimately, he was acquitted from criminal charges by the jurisdictional criminal court extending the benefit of doubt to him pursuant to which he submitted joining to the respondent authorities and upon consideration, the suspension order was revoked and he was reinstated in service. However, the period from 28-6-2005 to 26-3-2008 was treated as “no work no pay” which has been called in question by way of this writ petition.
It is being contended that since the petitioner has been acquitted from criminal charges, therefore, he is entitled for full arrears of salary for the suspension period and also entitled for pensionary benefits and revised retiral benefits.
High Court Observation
The Court at the outset, took a careful look at circular dated 5-9- 1970 which clearly show that the Railway Board has clearly taken a policy decision that in all cases of acquittal, other than benefit of doubt, the period of suspension should be treated as duty for all purposes and full pay and allowances should be given to the employees for the period of suspension.
In view of the above, the Court noted:
"Since the petitioner has admittedly been acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, his period of suspension cannot be treated as duty for all purposes and he is not entitled for full pay and allowances, as the circular dated 5-9-1970 issued by the Railway Board is still in force and applicable to the parties. As such, the petitioner is not entitled for full pay and allowances during the period of suspension treating the suspension period as duty."
Adding that there is one more reason for not extending such benefit to the petitioner, the Court cited Sub-rules (3) and (8) of Fundamental Rule 54-B.
"A careful perusal of the aforesaid rule would show that where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant is entitled for full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended, but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8) of Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules."
The Court also deemed it appropriate to refer to SC Ruling in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. M. Prabhakar Rao. In this case, the Supreme Court has held that Fundamental Rule 54-B empowers the competent authority to grant full pay and allowances for the period of suspension if it is of the opinion that the suspension of the employee was wholly unjustified. It was further held that even in cases where acquittal in the criminal proceedings is on account of non-availability of evidence, the authorities concerned must be vested with the power to decide whether the employee at all deserves any salary for the intervening period, and if he does, the extent to which he deserves it.
The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Read Judgement Here:
Picture Source :
