Mere Expression 'Benefit Of Doubt' In Judgment Doesn't Mean Acquittal Was Not Honourable; Entire Reasoning Has To Be Appreciated: Bombay High Court

Justice NJ Jamadar observed that the reasoning in the judgement has to be seen in its entirety to determine the nature of the acquittal. The bench directed the suspension period of an employee who was suspended due to bribery allegations, to be treated as period on duty.

“…mere use of the expression ‘benefit of doubt’ in the judgment of criminal court, by itself, would not deprive the employee from claiming that the acquittal was ‘honourable’ or ‘clean’. If in the totality of the circumstances, the court comes to the conclusion that the acquittal of an employee is after consideration of the entire material and recording categorical finding that the guilt is not proved, the fact that the criminal court had also used an expression ‘benefit of doubt’ in the judgment would not constitute an impediment in inferring ‘honourable acquittal’”, the court held.

In July 1978, the petitioner, one Eknath Shankar Kamble, was appointed as a Tracer with the Zilla Parishad, Sangli. In 2001, while being posted at Panchayat Samiti, Jat, he was arrested by the Anti-Corruption Bureau with allegation of demanding and taking bribe of Rs. 500/-. He was accused of taking the bribe for forwarding to the Zilla Parishad, the complainant’s proposal for enhancement in rent of the premises the Zilla Parishad had taken on lease to run a school. He was suspended from October 18, 2001.

During the pendency of his trial, the Zilla Parishad Sangli in 2005 compulsorily retired him with effect from January 15, 2006. He was acquitted in April 2009 and approached the Sangli Zilla Parishad for full retiral benefits. The Zilla Parishad in 2010 decided to treat the suspension period from October 18, 2001 to January 16, 2006 as suspension period. Kamble’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the appellate authority.

He approached the industrial court with a complaint of unfair labour practice against this decision. The industrial court dismissed his complaint in 2017 reasoning that Kamble was acquitted only due to benefit of doubt and it was not a case of honourable acquittal or complete exoneration. Thus, Kamble filed the present writ petition challenging this decision.

The High Court said that the competent authority can decide to either initiate disciplinary proceedings or treat the suspension period as period on duty depending upon the nature of the acquittal of a person. This depends on whether the acquittal is clean and honourable and the employee has been completely exonerated or whether the employee was acquitted on account of technical or procedural flaws in the prosecution’s case, the High Court said.

The High Court noted that there was a technical flaw in the prosecution’s case as the officer who was the formal complainant himself entered into the investigation. This is the technical reason due to which the trial judge gave the benefit of doubt to Kamble, the High Court said.

However, the trial judge also found that Kamble was not entrusted with the task of forwarding proposal to the Zilla Parishad, and the head of the school had not referred the complainant to Kamble. The trial judge further found that the evidence of the complainant and the trap witness regarding the demand of bribe was untrustworthy and the acceptance of bribe and recovery of tainted currency notes was not proved by the prosecution beyond doubt.

In the present case, the trial judge found that the prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused on all ingredients such as opportunity, demand, and acceptance, the High Court noted.

“Use of expression ‘not proved beyond reasonable doubt’ cannot be the sole barometer. The said expression also denotes the standard of proof on the touchstone of which the evidence is appraised. It may not, therefore, be justifiable to hold that the acquittal can in no case be honourable or clean where the criminal court uses the expression ‘not proved beyond reasonable doubt’ or that the accused is entitled to ‘benefit of doubt’”, the High Court opined.

The High Court further noted that no independent disciplinary proceeding was initiated against Kamble and he was compulsory retired by invoking the power to retire an employee in public interest. The High Court opined that the retirement in public interest was not wholly unconnected with the circumstances which led to Kamble’s suspension, even if the retirement was not by the way of penalty. It noted that despite being acquitted and no disciplinary action initiated against him, Kamble stood retired in public interest 3 years before the normal superannuation.

Therefore, the industrial court committed an error in dismissing the complaint, the High Court held. It concluded that the period of suspension deserves to be treated as the period spend on duty for the purpose of retiral benefits. It clarified that Kamble shall not be entitled to pay and allowances for the said period, apart from the subsistence allowance which has already been paid to him.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 12326 of 2017

Case Title – Eknath Shankar Kamble v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli and Ors.