IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
D. K. SINGH, J.
K. Sunil Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Food Corporation of India (FCI) - Respondent
WP(C) NO. 23262 OF 2024
Decided On : 22-01-2025
(A) Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 - Regulations 31, 32, 45, 66 - Writ petition challenging non-regularization of suspension period - Petitioner was acquitted in criminal case but not found to have been honourably acquitted - Disciplinary Authority's decision upheld as justified. (Paras 10 , 11 )
(B) Acquittal in criminal case - Mere acquittal does not entitle reinstatement; must be honourable - Acquittal on technical grounds does not equate to honourable acquittal. (Paras 8 .1, 8.4)
Facts of the case: The petitioner, a Manager at FCI, was suspended after being implicated in an Abkari case and remained in judicial custody. He was acquitted in the criminal case, but the Disciplinary Authority did not consider this acquittal as honourable due to technical grounds.
Findings of Court: The court upheld the Disciplinary Authority's decision, stating that the petitioner's acquittal was not honourable and justified the denial of treating the suspension period as duty.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner's acquittal was honourable and the implications of unauthorized absence during suspension. Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an acquittal must be honourable to warrant reinstatement, and technical acquittals do not confer such rights. Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr S P Aravindakshan Pillay learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Jose Kuriakose learned Standing Counsel for the Food Corporation of India (FCI).
Facts :
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is employed as Manager (General) in the service of the Food Corporation of India (‘FCI’ for short), aggrieved by the non-regularization of his period of suspension with effect from 16.08.2015 to 15.02.2016 as a duty for all purposes.
2.1 The facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, disclose that the petitioner was implicated in an Abkari case while working as Assistant Grade-1 (General) at the Food Corporation of India’s District office, Kannur. He was in judicial custody from 16.08.2015 until he got bail on 09.09.2015.
2.2 As per the final report submitted by the Excise Department vide charge sheet no.31/2016 dated 29.02.2016 under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner was apprehended transporting 14.25 litres of foreign liquor, which was seized by the Excise Officers and Crime No.129/2015 under Section 58 of the Abkari Act was registered against him. The petitioner was sent to judicial custody on 16.08.2015. The petitioner was placed under suspension in terms of sub-regulation 2(a) of Regulation 66 of the FCI (staff) Regulation 1971, with a change in headquarters to District Office Kozhikode. The suspension was extended for a period of 90 days vide the order dated 14.12.2015, and thereafter, the suspension was revoked with effect from 15.02.2016 vide the order dated 17.02.2016.
3. The Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Regulation 58 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations 1971 vide Memorandum dated 07.03.2017, for the following charges:-
3.1 The Enquiry Officer concluded that the charge against the petitioner was proved, and the Disciplinary Authority, vide the punishment order dated 07.08.2018 [Ext P4], imposed the penalty of “reduction to two-stage lower in the time scale of pay for three years with cumulative effect but same shall not have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay after penalty period”.
3.2 The Assistant Session Judge Vatakara, in Sessions Case No.866/2016, acquitted the petitioner in the Abkari case. The judgment of the Assistant Session Judge, Vatakara, dated 30.03.2021 in Sessions case No.866/2016, has been placed on record. Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the said judgment would read as under:-
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Parvez Khan
State of West Bengal v. Sankar Ghosh
Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration v. Pradeep Kumar
Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471
Deputy Inspector General of Police v. S Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598
Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal
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.
Mere acquittal in criminal case does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service – Acquittal has to be honourable.
Point of Law : 25. Employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to a candidate, who has been acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt, as the employer is having a right to consider the candida....
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 court emphasized that the enhancement of penalty, the nature of the petitioner's acquittal, and the proportionality of the punishment were crucial in reaching its decision.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.