Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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