IMPORTANT POINT
A government employee acquitted on the benefit of doubt is not automatically entitled to full pay; entitlement arises only if the employee is 'acquitted of blame' under Rule 57 of the Kerala Service Rules.

JUDGMENT :

(A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.)

The State has filed this original petition challenging an order issued by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The primary issue addressed by the Tribunal is whether the respondent, a government employee, is entitled to receive full pay and allowances for the duration of her suspension from service. The period in question spans from October 2, 1998, to January 15, 2006.

2. The respondent, while working as a Physical Education Teacher was arrested by Police on registration of a criminal case. The arrest was made on 02/10/1998. Following the arrest, the respondent was placed under suspension. She was acquitted on the benefit of doubt vide judgment of the Sessions Court on 20/06/2005. Thereafter, the respondent was reinstated in service on 16/01/2006. The period of suspension till reinstatement is the subject matter of the dispute. The respondent claimed full pay and allowances. That was rejected by the Government referring to Rule 56B(3) of Part I of Kerala Service Rules, 1956 (KSR). The Government regularised the above period as a duty for all purposes except for pay and allowance.

3. There were no disciplinary proceedings. The question in this case is more of an interpretation of the relevant rule and applicability of such rule governing the matter. Rule 56B of Part I of KSR deals with the power of the competent authority to order reinstatement and allow or reject pay and allowances to the government servants. Rule 56B(1) refers to a situation where such a government servant retires from service before the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Rule 56B(2) refers to the situation in which the government servant who is under suspension dies before the disciplinary, or court proceedings instituted against him are concluded.

4. It is appropriate to refer to Rule 56B(3) Part I KSR, which reads as follows:

3) Where the Authority Competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the officer shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8) be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended:

Provided that where such authority is of the opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the officer had been delayed owing to reasons directly attributable to the officer, it may after giving him an opportunity to make his representation and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the officer shall be paid for the period of such delay only such amount (not being the whole) of such pay and allowances as it may determine.

5. Rule 56B(3) Part I KSR has to be read in the light of Rule 56B(1) and sub-rule 2. That means in any of the situations referred to in 56B(1)&(2) if the authority feels that suspension was wholly unjustified, it can order full pay and allowances to such government servants. On a close reading of the provision of 56B, it can be seen that the above provisions would be applicable in a matter where disciplinary enquiry is initiated against the government servants.

6. Rule 57 Part I KSR refers to a situation where the government servant is placed under suspension consequent upon the commencement of criminal proceedings and further states that if such a government servant is acquitted of blame, he would be entitled to the full amount. That means, on the acquittal of blame, the government servant will be entitled to the full amount after adjusting the subsistence allowance and other allowances already granted under Rule 55 Part I KSR. What is the meaning of the ‘acquittal of blame’ is the next question.

7. This Court in Ramachandran Pillai v. Kerala State Electricity Board (1980 KLT 608) referred to the purport of Rule 57 Part I KSR and held as follows:

The discretion in regard to adjustment of pay and allowances according to the circumstances of the case is only with respect to the cases other than which en