Period Of Suspension Of Govt Servant Not To Be Treated As 'On Duty' Where Acquittal Based On Benefit Of Doubt: Bombay High Court

In view of registration of FIR under Sections 419 and 34 of IPC against the petitioner, a worker in the in the Ordnance Factory, he was placed under suspension on 12/11/2009 under Rule 10(1)(b) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCA Rules, 1965).

In trial, the Judicial Magistrate observed that considering the nature of evidence on record the charge against the accused (petitioner) could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. On that premise the said accused were acquitted.

Based on such acquittal, the Petitioner had sought revocation of suspension and regularization of suspension period as 'on duty'. Whereas the former request was allowed, the latter was declined on the ground that the acquittal was not honourable.

The bench referred to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Methu Meda, where it was held that in case, the prosecution failed to take steps to examine crucial witnesses or the witnesses turned hostile, such acquittal would fall within the purview of giving benefit of doubt and the accused cannot be treated as honourably acquitted by the criminal court.

The court noted that on perusing the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in the aforesaid context, it becomes clear that it was found that the eye-witnesses examined had not supported the case of the prosecution and the Investigating Officer had not been examined to prove the inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses. On that premise the Magistrate observed that the charge against the petitioner was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. These observations when considered in the light of the law laid down in Methu Meda (supra) lead no manner of doubt that such acquittal was after giving the petitioner the benefit of doubt and the acquittal could not be treated as to be an honourable acquittal.

The court observed only if the Competent Authority is of the opinion that the suspension in question was wholly unjustified that the Government servant would be entitled to full pay and allowances to which the Government servant would have been entitled had he not been suspended. However, considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, the bench found that the suspension of the petitioner on 12/11/2009 was in fact justified.

"The petitioner while working as Danger Building Worker (Semi skilled) II was alleged to have permitted accused Nos.1,3 and 5 to appear for the examination for the post of Fireman Grade-II in place of the actual candidates who were accused Nos.2,4 and 6. The accusations as made were on account of the conduct of the petitioner himself during the course of employment with the respondent No.3-Ordnance Factory. Though it is true that the petitioner was ultimately acquitted in the criminal trial, the nature of allegation that led to his suspension on 12/11/2009 would be relevant for considering whether his suspension was justified or not. It would have been a different matter if the petitioner's conduct that led to his suspension was based on an act that did not have any connection with discharge of his duties. That is not the case here. The Competent Authority therefore was justified in placing the petitioner under suspension on registration of such offence against him."

The bench referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 1997 3 SCC 636. The cause of suspension and initiation of punitive action based on the petitioner's conduct leading to his prosecution were found to be sufficient to hold such suspension to be justified therein. The court concluded that cannot be said that while passing the impugned order dated 13/04/2016 holding the petitioner not entitled to pay and allowances for the period of suspension, the Competent Authority acted arbitrarily.

Case Title : Ravindra Prasad Munneshwar Prasad v Union of India & ors

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 120

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment