ORDER

The captioned petition is filed assailing the order dated

10.12.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A and the consequent memo issued on a representation submitted by the petitioner herein as per Annexure-B. The petitioner is seeking a mandamus against respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 08.04.2019 and sanction backwages and salary due to the petitioner during his period of suspension.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The petitioner was appointed by respondent No.2 to the post of watchman at High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench. The petitioner was placed under suspension on account of registration of crime in Crime No.324/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44 and 51 of the Wild Life (Prevention) Act, 1972 read with Section 379 of IPC. In the said complaint, it was alleged against the petitioner that he has stolen 10 live turtles from the forest and had illegally kept them at High Court quarters without any licence, permit and pass. Based on the said compliant, investigation was conducted and charge sheet was laid against the present petitioner and other accused.

3. The petitioner made a representation on

08.08.2013 and brought to the notice of respondent No.2 about his acquittal of all the charges in C.C.No.2820/2011 and therefore, a request was made to revoke his suspension. The grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent No.2 taking cognizance of acquittal has revoked his suspension with immediate effect, however, declined to grant monetary benefits. Petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation on 08.04.2019 thereby requesting to grant full salary for the period he was placed under suspension. The respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B declined to grant monetary benefits on the ground that acquittal was by giving benefit of doubt. The second reason for denying salary for the suspension period was on the ground that petitioner has not discharged official duty during the period of suspension and has reported for duty only on 11.12.2015.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition has placed reliance on the following judgments:

1) Union of India and Ors. vs. Kameshwar Prasad – (1997) 11 SCC 650;

2) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vs. M.Prabhakar Rao – (2011) 8 SCC 155;

3) Krishnakant R.Bibhavnekar vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. – (1997) 3 SCC 636;

4) C.R.Radhakrishnan vs. State of Kerala and Ors. – (2017)

13 SCC 365;

5) P.Ramaswamy vs. General Manager, Canara Bank and Anr.

– (1998) 3 LLN 686;

6) Anish Gupta vs. Union of India and Anr. – 2019 SCC Online Del 7383;

7) Union of India and Ors. vs. K.V.Jankiraman and Ors. –

(1991) 4 SCC 109;

8) Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Anr. vs. Mehar Singh – (2013) 7 SCC 685;

9) Union of India vs. Methu Meda – (2022) 1 SCC 1;

10) Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. - (2024) 1 SCC

175;

11) State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Debashish Mukherjee and Ors. – (2011) 14 SCC 187.

5. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered in P.Ramaswamy vs. General Manager, Canara Bank (supra) and in the case of Anish Gupta vs. Union of India (supra), he would vehemently argue and contend that where disciplinary proceedings post acquittal in criminal proceedings are not conducted, full consequential monetary benefits are required to be accorded to the concerned personnel. Reliance is also placed on the judgments rendered in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs. Mehar Singh, Union of India vs. Methu Meda and Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (supra).

Referring to these judgments, he would contend that ‘Honourable acquittal’ and such other concepts are only relevant vis-à-vis departmental proceedings. On account of acquittal in a fully contested criminal proceedings, he would point out that the petitioner is entitled to seek monetary benefits during the suspension period. He would also place reliance on the judgment rendered in Union of India vs. K.V.Jankiraman (supra) to substantiate that princi