AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.07.2015 (Annexure-P/1), whereby the Bank has declined the claim of the petitioner for grant of full pay and allowances for the period petitioner remained under suspension.
Admitted facts between the parties are that the petitioner was under suspension between 04.05.1994 to 20.09.2012. The petitioner remained under suspension because of pendency of a criminal case. The competent Court in Criminal Case No.2442/2011 passed the judgment on 25.08.2011 (Annexure-P/4) and acquitted the petitioner.
The argument of Shri Jai Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner is based on the judgment whereby the petitioner is exonerated. He relied on 2008 (4) MPLJ 162 (Acquittal of Criminal Charges and Entitlement to Backwages Vs. R.P. Upadhyaya), to bolster his submission that on acquittal the petitioner is entitled to get full pay and allowances.
Prayer is opposed by Shri Amit Nagpal, learned counsel for the respondents.
No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties on this aspect.
In 1994 (1) SCC 541 (RBI Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal), the Apex Court held that the decision of the employer in not treating the suspension period for grant of pay and allowances is correct because the employee was acquitted by the High Court on the benefit of doubt. In the case of R.P. Upadhyaya (supra), this Court followed the ratio of Bhopal Singh Panchal (supra) and broadly categorized the cases of acquittal for the purpose of considering grant of backwages. Category (v) related to acquittal for want of proper and sufficient evidence due to the acts attributable to the employee himself. This Court opined that in cases falling under Category (v), the employee would not be entitled to get backwages. In Bhopal Singh Panchal (supra) also, the pay and allowances were not granted because acquittal was on ???benefit of doubt???. In the present case, the judgment of Criminal Case No.2442/2011 shows that the petitioner is not acquitted on merits. Indeed, his acquittal is based on ???benefit of doubt???.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid legal position, petitioner is not entitled to get pay and allowances for the period he remained under suspension. Petition being bereft of merit, is hereby dismissed. No cost.