Acquittal of the blame means acquitted of the offence with which a person is charged, entitling them to full benefits during a suspension period.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Art 226 of the Constn. had come up, in the first instance, before a single Judge, Venkataramiah, J. , who has referred it to a Division Bench His Lordship felt that though the question arising for decision in this petition, is covered by a ruling of a Division Bench (consisting of Narayana Pai, CJ. , and Range Gowda, J.) in WP. 2115 of 1967, that question has not been considered therein from a particular angle. The material facts in this petition, are not in controversy. The petitioner was a Revenue Inspector. He was prosecuted for an offence, under s. 417 rea,d with S. 109 IPC. In view of the, pendency of the prosecution against him, he was kept under suspension on 22-10-1952. He was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge, Mysore. In appeal, Crl. A. 227 of 1957, this Court set aside the conviction and sentence, on the ground that the trial was wholly vitiated on account of misjoinder of parties and charges and multiplicity of charges. This Court did not permit his being tried again as such re-trial was considered to amount to his harassment at that distance of time. After his acquittal he was reinstated in service. He requested the authorities that the entire period o-E his suspension might be treated as his having been on duty and that he might be granted the benefit of full pay, allowances and usual increments he would have got, had he not been placed under suspension. But the Govt. did not accede to his request. He was not granted any emoluments over and above the subsistence allowance paid to him during the period of his suspension. His application for review of the decision of the Govt. , was also rejected by the order of the Goverment dt. 17-1-1972 (Ex. 'g' ).

( 2 ) IN this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the G. O. dt. 17-1-1972 (Ex. 'g'), and for a direction to the Govt to treat the period of his suspension from 22-10-1952 to 11-11-1960 as his haying been on duty and togrant him ail the benefits of service,, such a^ full pay, allowances and increments he would have got, had he not been kept under suspension- in the impugned G. O. dt. 17-1-1972 (Ex. 'g'), it is stated that the acquittaj of the petitioner by this Court, was not on merits, but due to defect in the trial and that as he had not been honourably acquitted he could not claim the full emoluments during the period of his suspension. Rule 101 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (which will herein after be referred to as the Rules) provides, inter alia, that a Government servant against whom proceedings have been taken on a criminal charge and who is kept under suspension during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, shall, if he is ultimately acquitted, be given the full emoluments during the period of suspension, only in the event of his acquittal of the blame.

( 3 ) AS stated earlier, the petitioner who was kept under suspension during the pendency of the criminal proceedings against him, was ultimately acquitted in appeal. The only question that arises for determination, is whether he was acquitted of the blame.

( 4 ) THE learned Govt. Pleader contended that the petitioner was acquitted on a purely technical ground, namely, mis-joinder of parties and charges and multiplicity of charges, and that he was not honourably acquitted or exonerated of the blame. The learned Govt. Pleader sought to draw a distinction between acquittal of charge arid acquittal of the blame. According to him, mere acquittal of the charge is not sufficient and that he must also be acquitted of the blame in order to claim full emoluments during the period of suspension.

( 5 ) THIS very contention based upon the alleged distinction between acquittal of the charge and acquittal of the blame, was considered by the bench consisting of Narayana Pai, CJ. , and Range Gowda, J. , in H. V. Seshagiri Rao v. State of Mysore, WP. 2115 of 1967. Repelling that contention, this is what Narayana Pai, CJ. , who spoke for the Bench said :" There cann

Click Here to Read the rest of this document