Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme 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