Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

Bombay High Court: Acquittal of Employee after Consideration of Evidence is Honourable; Suspension Period to be Counted for Retiral Benefits

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court emphasized that an acquittal of an employee, after a thorough consideration of facts and evidence, should be regarded as honourable. The court further ruled that the period of suspension should be counted towards retiral benefits. The decision came in the case of Eknath v. Union of India and Ors., where the petitioner challenged his suspension and sought reinstatement and retiral benefits.

The court, while discussing the expression 'honourable acquittal,' stated, "If the acquittal is directed by the court on consideration of facts and material evidence on record with the finding of false implication or the finding that the guilt had not been proved, accepting the explanation of accused as just, it be treated as honourable acquittal." The court highlighted that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not recognize the terms 'honourable acquittal,' 'acquitted of blame,' or 'fully acquitted.'

In this case, the petitioner was suspended from service, leading to his retirement in public interest under Rule 10(4)(b) of the Pension Rules, 1982. The court observed inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and trap witness and found that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner was acquitted based on the lack of proof and false implication.

The court ruled that the acquittal, considering the entire reasoning and standard of proof applied, should be deemed honourable. It emphasized that a mere acquittal due to benefit of doubt in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the employee to reinstatement or all service benefits unless specific rules provide for it.

Regarding the suspension period, the court held that it should be treated as the period spent on duty for the purpose of retiral benefits. The petitioner's pension will be refixed, taking into account the salary he would have notionally received on the date of retirement.

This decision by the Bombay High Court provides clarity on the treatment of acquittals and the counting of suspension periods for retiral benefits. It reaffirms that an employee's acquittal, after a comprehensive evaluation of evidence, should be regarded as honourable and considered for appropriate benefits.

Date of Decision: 8 JUNE 2023

Eknath Shankar vs Chief Executive Officer,

Latest Legal News