Acquittal on benefit of doubt does not entitle an employee to claim pension benefits for periods of suspension treated as 'dies non' due to prior misconduct.

ORDER

Delivered by Smt. Mallika Arya, Administrative Member:-

The present original application has been directed against the order dated 26.10.1998 (Annexure A-1), order dated 15.03.2014 (Annexure A-2) and order dated 15.06.2015 (Annexure A-3). Prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents to treat the period of suspension from 28.04.1997 to 25.10.1998 and the intervening period from 26.10.1998 to 29.09.2004 as spent on duty for all practical purposes with all consequential benefits.

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the original applicant Late Safi Mohammad (hereinafter refereed to as deceased applicant) while in service was implicated in a criminal case under Section 436/34 of IPC and he was placed under deemed suspension by the Order dated 28.11.1997 (Annexure-A-4) w.e.f. 28.4.1997. Thereafter, a criminal case No.358/1997 was registered against the deceased applicant in which vide order dated 06.01.1998 he was convicted for five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/-. Thereafter, the respondent vide order dated 26.10.1998 (Annexure-A-1) compulsorily retired the deceased applicant from service w.e.f. 26.10.1998. Consequently, in the Criminal Appeal No. 122/1998 filed by the deceased applicant before Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh , the order dated 06.01.1998 passed in Criminal Case No. 358/1997 was set aside vide judgment dated 30.10.2013 (Annexure A-5). Thereafter, the deceased applicant preferred a representation dated 21.11.2013 to the General Manager, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur , who issued a memorandum dated 24.12.2013 (Annexure-A-6) proposing to treat the period from 26.10.1998 to 21.09.2004 as ‘dies non’ as he had been retired from service w.e.f. 26.10.1998 based on his conviction. It is contended that the vide order dated 15.3.2014 (Annexure-A-2) the period of suspension from 28.4.1997 to 25.10.1998 and the intervening period from 26.10.1998 to 29.9.2004 has not been treated as the period spent on duty though it was not treated as ‘break in service’. Being aggrieved by the order of the General Manager, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur, the deceased applicant preferred an appeal dated 15.09.2014 (Annexure-A-7), which has been rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 15.06.2015 (Annexure A-3).

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that while passing the order dated 15.03.2014, the General Manager has not confirmed as to whether the period from 28.4.1997 to 25.10.1998 shall be counted for the purpose of retrial dues and pension or not. Apart from this, no order has been passed by the competent authority to revise the pension of the deceased applicant in the light of his acquittal from criminal charges. Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that the period of suspension shall be counted for the purpose of pensionery benefit. Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that the facts and grounds raised by the applicant in his appeal have not been taken into consideration by the appellate authority while passing the order dated 15.06.2015. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant cited the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 02.11.2011 in W.P. No. 5944/2010 - Prakash Kumar Sahu Vs. U.O.I & Ors - (2012)2 MP LJ 347 and argued that once the deceased applicant has been acquitted from the criminal charges, the period of suspension and thereafter the intervening period from 26.10.1998 to 29.9.2004 as spent on duty for the purpose of retrial dues and pension should be counted for all practical purposes and prayed that the OA may be allowed and the reliefs may be granted to the applicants.

4. Per contra, the respondents have contested the OA and filed their reply stating therein that looking to the nature of the offence penalty of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 26.10.1998 with 2/3rd pension and retirement gratuity was released. The respondents contended that since the acquittal of the deceased applicant was based on bene