An acquittal in a criminal case ensures entitlement to salary and retirement benefits, reinforcing the property right under Article 300-A of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondents to release and pay the arrear of salary with consequential benefits in favaour of the petitioner for the period from 03.11.2011 to 30.06.2019 and for a further direction to release the provident fund dues, gratuity and pension in favour of the petitioner with interest as due.

2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed to the post of Night Guard-cum-Peon (hereinafter referred to as the said post) under the West Bengal State Cooperative Marketing Federation (Benfed) (hereinafter referred to as "said Co-operative") with effect from 06.03.1998 in terms of appointment letter issued vide memo no. SCMF/MD/302/97-98 dated 06.03.1998 read with corrigendum vide memo no. SCMF/Pers/604 dated 02.11.2005 issued by the Managing Director. It is stated that the petitioner was posted at Memari Benfed Himghar, District-Burdwan.

3. While the petitioner was working in the "said post" at Hooghly Branch he was falsely implicated in a criminal case under Section 406 /420 of the Indian Penal Code registered as Khandaghosh P.S. Case No. 122/2011 dated 03.11.2011 (G.R. Case No. 1719 of 2011).

4. As the petitioner was detained in custody for the said case, the Managing Director of the "said Co-operative" vide memo no. SCMF/Pers/903 dated 07.12.2011 had placed the petitioner under suspension with effect from 03.11.2011 until further orders. Though the petitioner was released on bail on 12.01.2012, the authorities did not allow the petitioner to resume his duties.

5. In terms of the judgment dated 21.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 6^th Court, Burdwan in G.R. Case No. 1719 of 2011 the petitioner was found not guilty of the offence punishable u/s 420/406 IPC and accordingly was acquitted from the said case.

6. The petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2019 and on being acquitted he made an application before the Managing Director of the Cooperative for his arrears of salary and all other dues on 26.06.2019, to the respondent authorities and also prayed for permission to join his duties which the respondent authorities did not permit.

7. The petitioner retired without his dues and he was only paid subsistence allowance. Though he is entitled to full salary from 03.11.2011 upto his retirement. The petitioner then made a representation before the General Manager (Administration) of the said Cooperative for release of his dues but his dues were not released in his favour.

8. On hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner was implicated in the criminal case by his nephew, who during trial did not support the prosecution case.

9. The allegation in the written complaint in the criminal case was as follows:-

“…………On 08.03.2011 defacto complainant paid Rs.50,000/- to the accused person as per his proposal and plan for purchasing potato seeds. Accused persons promised that he will return back the said money to the defacto complainant along with profit within four months. One agreement was prepared on a stamp paper with signature. But the accused person did not return the said money to the complainant……”

10. It appears from the materials on record that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations in the written complaint made by the nephew of the petitioner who subsequently did not support the prosecution case. It is further noted that the complainant was the sole witness to the prosecution. The prosecution did not