CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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