Acquittal Not Honourable, Based On Benefit Of Doubt: Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Railway Board's Decision Denying Full Pay For Suspension Period

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that in case of acquittal of an employee based on the benefit of doubt, Railway authorities are justified in not granting him full wages during the suspension period.

Dismissing the petition filed by one such employee seeking full back wages, Justice Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal observed,

"Since the petitioner has been acquitted giving the benefit of doubt, which goes to show that the Railway authorities were justified in placing the petitioner under suspension and as such, placing the petitioner under suspension was not without material, therefore, his suspension cannot be held to be wholly unjustified to hold him entitled for full pay and allowances during the period of suspension."

Background

The petitioner sought arrears of salary for the suspension period and fixing of his pensionary benefits based on the last pay drawn by him.

The petitioner worked as Head Constable in the Railway Protection Force [RPF]. He was suspended as an FIR containing offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, and 307 of IPC was registered against him. However, no departmental inquiry was initiated against him. He was acquitted from criminal charges in May 2008 by the jurisdictional criminal Court by granting 'benefit of doubt'.

The suspension order was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated in service, but the time for which the trial lasted was treated as "no work no pay" on the basis of Circular issued as per Rule 54-B(3) of the Fundamental Rules.

Through this petition, the governing rules were called into question. It was argued that since the petitioner has been acquitted, he is entitled to full arrears of salary for the suspension period and also entitled to pensionary benefits and revised retiral benefits.

The respondent argued that since no honorable acquittal has been granted to the petitioner, he has been extended the benefit of the doubt; thus, the suspension period cannot be treated as duty.

Findings of the Court

The Court carefully perused the Circular showing that the Railway Board has decided that in all cases of acquittal, other than the benefit of the 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.

It, therefore, concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to full pay and allowances during the period of suspension, treating the suspension as a duty.

The Court also cited another reason for not extending such a benefit, arising from Rule 54B of the Fundamental Rules. On perusing the same, it noted 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."

It referred to a broad range of judgments on the topic, such as Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. M. Prabhakar Rao, where the Supreme court had held that 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.

Accordingly, the Court in the present case noted that it is not the petitioner's case that the jurisdictional criminal Court has honorably acquitted him. Therefore, his suspension was not wholly unjustified. 

Case Title: Reshamlal v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 7

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order