Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J.JAMADAR, J.
Eknath Shankar Kamble – Appellant
Versus
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli – Respondent
Writ Petition No.12326 of 2017
Decided on : 08-06-2023
Acquittal - Unfair Labour Practice - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Maharashtra Civil Services ( Joining Time, Foreign Service, Payments during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1981 - [Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Rule 72 of the Suspension Rules, 1981] - The court discussed the legality, propriety, and correctness of the judgment and order dated 15 March 2017 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court at Sangli, in Complaint (ULP) No.163 of 2014. The court analyzed the nature of the alleged misconduct, the treatment of suspension period, and the implications of acquittal on the employee's entitlement to service benefits. The court referred to key legal provisions such as Rule 72 of the Suspension Rules, 1981 and relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and discussed the distinction between 'honourable acquittal' and acquittal by extending benefit of doubt. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the nature of acquittal and its impact on the employee's entitlement to service benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a Tracer with the Zilla Parishad, Sangli, was placed under suspension after being apprehended for allegedly accepting an illegal gratification. The Petitioner was compulsorily retired from service with effect from 5 January 2006. Subsequently, the Petitioner was acquitted of all the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Petitioner approached the Industrial Court with a Complaint of unfair labour practice, alleging that the Respondent did not treat the suspension period as the period spent on duty despite the acquittal and did not grant retiral benefits. The Industrial Court dismissed the Complaint, opining that the Petitioner's acquittal was not a case of honourable acquittal or complete exoneration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the nature of the alleged misconduct, the treatment of suspension period, and the implications of acquittal on the employee's entitlement to service benefits were crucial. The court analyzed the judgment of the learned Special Judge in the criminal case and interpreted the provisions of Rule 72 of the Suspension Rules, 1981 and relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court concluded that the Petitioner's suspension period deserved to be treated as the period spent on duty for the purpose of retiral benefits, and the pension deserved to be refixed after taking into account the suspension period. The court set aside the orders passed by the Industrial Court and the authorities below, and partly allowed the Petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the treatment of the suspension period post-acquittal, the entitlement of the employee to retiral benefits, and the interpretation of key legal provisions such as Rule 72 of the Suspension Rules, 1981 and relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the nature of acquittal and its impact on the employee's entitlement to service benefits. The court considered the distinction between 'honourable acquittal' and acquittal by extending benefit of doubt, and analyzed the implications of the acquittal on the treatment of the suspension period and the employee's entitlement to retiral benefits.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the Petition, quashed the impugned orders, and directed that the suspension period be treated as the period spent on duty for the purpose of retiral benefits. The court ordered the refixing of the pension after taking into account the suspension period, while clarifying that the Petitioner shall not be entitled to pay and allowances for the said period.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Petition is heard finally.
2. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dated 15 March 2017 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court at Sangli, in Complaint (ULP) No.163 of 2014, whereby the learned Member, Industrial Court, was persuaded to dismiss the Complaint.
3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts can be stated as under :
3.1 On 17 July 1978, the Petitioner was appointed as a Tracer with the Zilla Parishad, Sangli. On 18 October 2001, while the Petitioner was posted at Panchayat Samiti, Jat, the Petitioner came to be apprehended by Anti-Corruption Bureau with the allegation that the Petitioner had demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification. The Petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 18 October 2001. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Special Criminal Case No.4 of 2002.
3.2 During the pendency of the trial in Special Criminal Case No.4 of 2002, the Respondent No.1 vide notice dated 17 October 2005, proposed to compulsorily retire the Petitioner from service with effect from 15 January 2006. A complaint of unfair labour practice, being Complaint (ULP) No.1 of 2006, preferred by the Petitioner thereagainst came to be dismissed on 2 September 2009.
3.3 In the meanwhile, the Petitioner was acquitted in Special Criminal Case No.4 of 2002 by the learned Special Judge, Sangli by a judgment and order dated 28 April 2009.
3.4 Post acquittal, the Petitioner approached Respondent No.1 for full retiral benefits. A notice was issued to the Petitioner under Rule 72(5) of the Maharashtra Civil Services ( Joining Time, Foreign Service, Payments during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1981 (the Suspension Rules, 1981). The Petitioner gave an explanation on 27 October 2009. Respondent No.1 by an order dated 11 January 2010, directed that the suspension period from 18 October 2001 to 16 January 2006, be treated as suspension period.
3.5 The Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. By an order dated 19 December 2012, the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli.
3.6 The Petitioner, thus, approached the Industrial Court with a Complaint of unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act, 1971). It was alleged, inter alia, that the Respondent No.1 indulged in unfair labour practice by not treating the suspension period as the period spent on duty despite acquittal of the Petitioner in Special Criminal Case No.4 of 2002 and not granting the retiral benefits on the premise that the Petitioner retired from service on 16 January 2006.
3.7 By the impugned judgment and order 15 March 2017, the learned Member, Industrial Court, was persuaded to dismiss the Complaint opining that the Petitioner was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Special Criminal Case No.4 of 2002 by extending the benefit of doubt and it was not a case of honourable acquittal or complete exoneration. The learned Member was of the view that the Respondent No.1 arrived at a justifiable finding that the suspension of the Petitioner was not wholly unjustified as the Petitioner had not given any satisfactory explanation regarding the acceptance of an amount of Rs.500/- by way of illegal gratification and the acquittal was also on technical ground.
4. I have heard Mr. Pise, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Modak, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Mrs. Nimbalkar,
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between 'honourable acquittal' and acquittal by extending benefit of doubt, and its impact on the employee's entitlement to serv....
Acquittal in bribery case does not automatically entitle suspended employee to full backwages; competent authority may treat suspension as leave, applying 'no work no pay' where prosecution not by em....
Point of Law : Cause of suspension and initiation of punitive action based on petitioner’s conduct leading to his prosecution were found to be sufficient to hold such suspension to be justified there....
The denial of back wages for the suspension period and the refusal to treat the suspension period as spent on duty were illegal and unjustified.
An acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement; it must be an 'honourable acquittal' where the prosecution fails to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Rule 54 of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 is reproduced re-instatement.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
