2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1851

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
S. Sujatha, M (J), Sanjiv Kumar, M (A)
Girish H S – Appellant
Versus
South Western Railway – Respondent
O.A. No. 170/00442/2024

An acquittal based on insufficient evidence does not constitute an 'honourable acquittal'. An employee is not entitled to back wages for a period of proforma promotion when the employer was not the prosecutor in the criminal case.

Headnote:(A) Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Rule 5(2) - Suspension - Deemed suspension - Railway Board's letter No.E(D&A)92 RG 6-149 (A)(RBE 13/1993) dated 21/01/1993 Para.3.5 - Acquittal in criminal proceedings - Whether acquittal based on insufficient evidence constitutes 'Honourable Acquittal' - Entitlement to back wages and arrears of pay upon proforma promotion.

(B) Service Law - Promotion - Proforma promotion - Arrears of pay - An employee granted retrospective proforma promotion after acquittal in a criminal case is entitled to seniority and rank from the back date, but not the salary, based on the 'no work no pay' principle, unless the acquittal is 'honourable' and the employer was the prosecutor.

(C) Criminal Law - Acquittal - Honourable Acquittal - The expressions 'honourable acquittal', 'acquitted of blame', and 'fully exonerated' are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code. An acquittal is considered 'honourable' when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution case and the prosecution miserably fails to prove the charges. An acquittal based on a lack of sufficient evidence or benefit of doubt does not qualify as an 'honourable acquittal'. (Paras 25, 26, 28)

(D) Service Law - Back Wages - Employment cannot be saddled with the liability of back wages for a period when it was unable to avail the services of the employee due to their involvement in a criminal case, especially when the employer was not the prosecutor. The principle of 'no work, no pay' applies. (Paras 22, 23, 24)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a railway employee, was arrested and suspended in 2017 after the mother of a woman he was in a relationship with complained that he had refused to marry her, leading to her suicide attempt and subsequent death. He was charged and tried for offenses under Sections 417 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act. The criminal court acquitted him on 30.11.2022, observing that there was 'no sufficient material to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt'. Following his acquittal, the railway administration granted him two proforma promotions (to Technician Gr.II and Gr.I) with retrospective effect from the dates his juniors were promoted, restoring his seniority. However, the administration denied his claim for arrears of pay (back wages) for the period of the proforma promotions, citing his acquittal was not 'honourable' as it was based on insufficient evidence. The applicant challenged this denial.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the impugned order denying arrears was a speaking order with reasonable justification. The court found that the applicant's acquittal was not 'honourable' because it was based on a lack of sufficient evidence, essentially a benefit of doubt, and the court did not find him completely innocent or the prosecution malicious. The court further held that since the criminal case was a private affair and not initiated by the employer, the principle in Union of India v. Jaipal Singh applies: the employer cannot be made liable to pay back wages for a period during which it could not avail the employee's services. The applicant's conduct of involving himself in the crime, even if he was later acquitted on a technicality, disabled him from rendering service. The 'no work, no pay' principle was applied.

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant's acquittal constituted an 'honourable acquittal' entitling him to back wages, and whether the employer was justified in denying arrears of pay for the period of proforma promotion.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an acquittal based on a finding of 'no sufficient material to find the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt' is not an 'honourable acquittal' but an acquittal by benefit of doubt. Consequently, an employee so acquitted is not automatically entitled to back wages. The entitlement to back wages and arrears for a retrospective promotion depends on whether the employer was the prosecutor and whether the employee was fully exonerated. As the employer was not the prosecutor and the acquittal was not honourable, the denial of arrears was justified.

Result: The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit. No costs. (Para 29)