- In the case of Ravindra Prasad Munneshwar Prasad vs Union of India the Bombay HC has held that if a government servant is suspended on account of charges for a serious crime, and is acquitted because of a benefit of doubt, he is not entitled to the regularisation of the period of suspension by being treated as ‘on duty’.
- In the instant case, an FIR was registered under section 419 read with section 34 of the IPC against the accused who was a worker in an Ordinance Factory, as a result of which he was placed under suspension on 12/11/2009 under Rule 10(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, commonly known as the CCA Rules, 1965.
- At his trial, the Judicial Magistrate had observed that if the nature of the evidence put forth is considered, the charge alleged against the accused could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It was on this premise that the accused was acquitted.
- Based on this acquittal, the petitioner had sought revocation of the suspension and the regularisation of suspension period as ‘on duty’. While the former application was granted, the latter was declined on the ground that the acquittal was not honourable.
- The Hon’ble HC referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and ors vs Methu Meda (2022) SCC where the Court had observed that in a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution, until proven beyond reasonable doubt. In case the prosecution failed to examine the crucial witnesses or the witnesses have turned hostile, such acquittal would fall within the purview of giving benefit of doubt and the accused cannot be treated as honourably acquitted by the Court.
- In light of the aforementioned case and the judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the HC observed that the eye-witnesses examined had not supported the prosecution case and the Investigating Officer had not been examined to prove the inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses. It was because of this that the Judicial Magistrate had observed that the charge against the accused had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and in light of the aforementioned judgement, the acquittal could not be said to be honourable.
- The Court also observed that if the Competent Authority was of the opinion that the suspension in question was wholly justified, the government servant would be entitled to full pay and allowance. But if the nature of the allegations against the accused here were considered, the bench found that the suspension of the applicant was justified. The Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar vs State of Maharashtra and ors (1997) SCC.
- Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
