Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
P. Ganesan – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 22348 of 2017
Decided On : 03-07-2023
For the Petitioner:M. Ravi, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 & R2, P.T. Ramadevi, Standing Counsel, R3, V. Murali, Advocate.
An individual acquitted of all charges is entitled to the emoluments due, and the court can issue a Mandamus to enforce this entitlement.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Emoluments - Acquittal and entitlement to emoluments
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former employee of the Greater Chennai Corporation, filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction to grant and disburse various emoluments, following his acquittal in a criminal case and exoneration in disciplinary proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner, having been acquitted of all charges, was entitled to the emoluments sought, and issued a Mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the amounts within a specified time frame.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the petitioner to emoluments following his acquittal and exoneration, as well as the potential adjustment of a loan amount against the dues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that an acquittal clears the individual of all charges, and there cannot be any re-visitation of those charges in the course of his service or otherwise. It also stated that the adjustment of loan amounts and payment of interest should be inconformity with the rules and regulations.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to disburse the emoluments within a period of twelve weeks, with or without deducting the loan amount, and to address the issue of interest payment in accordance with the rules and regulations.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant and disburse (i) encashment of earned leave at credit, (ii) Un-earned leave on private affairs, (iii) Special Provident Fund and (iv) the petitioners contribution towards General Provident Fund to the petitioner along with interest on the delayed payment within a limited time frame.)
1. This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus, seeking a direction to the respondents, particularly to the 1st and 2nd respondents, the Greater Chennai Corporation, to grant and disburse (i) Encashment of Earned Leave at credit, (ii) Un-earned Leave on Private Affairs, (iii) Special Provident Fund and (iv) the petitioner''s contribution towards General Provident Fund to the petitioner together with interest for the delayed period within a time period.
2. The petitioner had joined service under the 1st and 2nd respondents on 14.03.1979 as a Painter. He then moved up the ladder and was appointed as a Conservancy Inspector on 01.05.1994. However, he came to be the focus of a complaint, which necessitated registration of FIR in Crime No.5/AC/2010/HQ by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Cell, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai under Sections 7 and 13(1) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in short for the charges of accepting illegal gratification or more commonly called as bribe amount. The petitioner was placed under suspension pending the criminal proceedings. The proceedings finally came to an end on 31.03.2022 and the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in C.C.No.3 of 2011, acquitted the petitioner of all charges.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the disciplinary proceedings which had been initiated had also come to a favourable end insofar as the petitioner and the petitioner has been exonerated on all charges.
4. The law is quite clear on this aspect. If a person acquitted, then he stands cleared of every offence charged against him and there cannot be any re-visitation of those charges on the said individual, either in the course of his service or otherwise.
5. By this Writ Petition, therefore, a Mandamus is sought that the respondents should disburse the aforementioned categories of emoluments which are due and payable to the petitioner herein.
6. The learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents, however, stated that though it is not the subject matter of the Writ Petition, the petitioner had availed a loan and that the petitioner will be paid the dues after proper adjustment of the loan amount.
7. These are issues purely between the petitioner and the 1st and 2nd respondents. So far as, this Court is concerned, in view of the acquittal in the aforementioned calender case in C.C.No.3 of 2011 by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, the petitioner is entitled for all emoluments as stated above. I am not prepared to enter into a discussion of adjustment and it is for the respondents to put that to the petitioner and for the petitioner to either accept it or to question it in appropriate proceedings. So far as the Mandamus is concerned, a Mandamus is issued, and a direction is issued to the respondents to workout the amounts payable to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and disburse the same in accordance with the rules and regulations, with or without deducting the loan amount, which again should be inconformity with the rules and regulations of the 1st and 2nd respondents.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner claims interest for the delayed payment. Again I would fall back to the rules and regulations and if the petitioner is entitled for the interest, the respondents may pay the interest and if the respondents are of the opinion that interest is not payable to the petitioner, then necessary reasons must be given for denying
