Union Of India And Others vs Satbir Singh

Vide this MA, the applicants/respondents (Union of India 86 Ors.) seek clazification of the order dated 20.12.2018 as to from which date the

respondent/applicant is entitled for the pensionary benefits and further seek six months' time for implementation of the order post clarification.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Record reveals that aggrieved by the finding of 'Guilty' and sentence of 'dismissal from Naval Service, to be deprived of three Good Conduct

Badges and to suffer consequential penalties' by the order of the Court Martial held on 15.10.1999 on Charge under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code

read with Section 77(2) of the Navy Act, the applicant filed the TA challenging the order of the Court Martial dated 15.10.1999 and related order

dated 07.04.2000 of the Chief of the Naval Staff.

Vide order dated 20.12.2018, the TA was partly allowed. The applicant was acquitted of the charges levelled against him by granting him ""benefit

of doubt"". Since he was acquitted of the charges/offences on the ground of granting benefit of doubt, therefore, he was not granted the benefit of

reinstatement but was held to be entitled to pensionary benefits.

By virtue of this application, the applicants (original respondents) seek clarification as to from which date, the pensionary benefits are to be paid to

the respondent (original applicant). Learned senior counsel for the applicants/respondents, by placing reliance upon the judgment dated 27.03.2017 in

C.R. Radhakrishnan Vs. State of Kerala and Others - (2017) 13 Supreme Court Cases 365 and judgment dated 13.07.2016 in Ajay Kumar Singh etc.

etc. Vs. Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief and others etc. etc.- (2016) 9 Supreme Court Cases 179 has submitted that at the most, the applicant will

be entitled to pensionary benefits from the date of the order since it was not a case of an honourable acquittal.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/applicant submits that since the conviction of the applicant was wrong and illegal and, therefore, he

has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him, therefore, he is entitled to pensionary benefits from the date when he was dismissed from

service i.e. 15.10.1999.

Having given our considerable thought to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the view that the

respondent/applicant will be entitled to pensionary benefits from the date of order i.e. 20.12.2018. We say so, because the case of C.R.

Radhakrishnan's (supra) was also a case where the applicant was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. However, he was denied full service

benefits for the period he was kept out of service on account of conviction in a criminal case. A special leave petition was preferred before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was observed that it was not a case where the appellant has been fully exonerated, meaning thereby it was not an

honourable acquittal. The acquittal is only on the ground of benefit of doubt. Thus, finding no merit in the appeal, the same was dismissed.

Substantially similar view was taken in Ajay Kumar Singh's case (supra), which was a case of bank robbery by naval personnel. Conviction of two

of the appellants was confirmed whereas one of the appellants was acquitted of the offences giving him the benefit of doubt. It was observed that

since he was granted benefit of doubt, therefore, he cannot seek reinstatement and consequential benefits.

Reverting to the case in hand, while acquitting the respondent/applicant by granting him benefit of doubt, we had clarified that he is not entitled to

benefit of reinstatement. However, he was granted pensionary benefits. In view of the judgments rendered by the Honble Supreme Court as referred

to above, it is clarified that the applicant will be entitled to pensionary benefits with effect from the date of passing of the order i.e. 20.12.2018, when

he was acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. The order be now implemented within three months from the date of this order.

Present MA stands disposed of in view of the aforesaid terms.

Pronounced in open court on this 6th day of February, 2020.