Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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