The meaning of 'honourably acquitted' under Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules and the applicability of clause (a) or (b) of the Rule in cases of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Sikri, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment, dated January 15, 1965, of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland, allowing, in part the petition filed by Raghava Rajgopalachari, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1562 of 1966, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and declaring that "the petitioner continued in service from 13th May, 1947 (the date of his suspension) to 29th June, 1954 and for this period he will get his full pay. He is to go on pension with effect from 13th June, 1953. The subsistence allowance already drawn by the petitioner will have to be adjusted towards pay or pension as the case may be."

2. The relevant facts for appreciating the points raised before us are as follows :-

The petitioner was in the employment of the Government of Assam, his services were lent to the Government of India on deputation. In April 1945, he was posted as Assistant Iron and Steel Controller at Kanpur. On December 31, 1945, he was promoted Deputy Iron and Steel Controller, Kanpur Circle, Kanpur. On September 21, 1946 the petitioner proceeded on leave. On May 13, 1947, he was suspended from service by the Government of India. On March 2, 1949, a charge-sheet was filed against him. He was due to retire on June 30, 1953. On July 23, 1953, a notification was issued continuing his service in the establishment under the Government of Assam after the date on which he attained superannuation till such time as the prosecution against him in the Court of law was finalised. On November 30, 1953, he was convicted by the Sessions Judge. He filed an appeal before the High Court and while the appeal was pending, by order dated March 17, 1954, he was dismissed from service with effect from November 30, 1953, "on ground of criminal convictions". The Allahabad High Court confirmed the petitions' conviction under Sections 161 and 467 Indian Penal Code and the sentences, imposed by the Trial Court in that behalf. His conviction under Section 120B Indian Penal Code and under Rule 81(4) read with Rule 121 Defence of India Rules was set aside and he was acquitted of the said offences. With certificate obtained from the High Court the petitioner appealed to this Court. This Court by judgment reported as R.R. Chari v. State of U.P., 1963-I SCR 121, dated March 28, 1962, allowed the appeal.

3. On July 5, 1962, the petitioner applied to the Government of Assam asking for full pay under Rule 54 of the Assam Fundamental Rules. On January 12, 1963, the Government of Assam passed the following order :-

"No. PG. 62/62/41- The Order issued vide the Deptt. Notification No. PG-27/53/14, dated 17th March, 1954 dismissing Shri R.R. Chari from Government service is hereby vacated.

The date of superannuation of Sri Chari and the manner of regularising his absence from duty from the date of suspension, Shri R.R. Chari from Government service is hereby vacated.

The date of superannuation of Sri Chari and the manner of regularising his absence from duty from the date of suspension, upto 28th March, 1962 is under consideration."

4. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution (Civil Rule No. 36/63) before the High Court of Assam, praying that the State of Assam be directed to pass orders under Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules. It was not disputed before the High Court that Fundamental Rule 54 was attracted in the case and the only question debated was whether the State would be directed to pass orders expeditiously or not. The High Court directed the Government of Assam to pass necessary orders under Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules by January 31, 1964. On January 28, 1964, the Government of Assam passed the following order :-

"In continuation of this Department Notification forwarded under the above-quoted Memo and the D.O. letter referred to above, I am directed to say that in view of the reserved nature of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment Shri Chari's acquittal by the Supreme Court could not be considered as honorable an