An acquittal based on the court finding a plea of false implication probable constitutes an 'honourable acquittal,' entitling the employee to treat the suspension period as duty, regardless of the use of the phrase 'benefit of doubt' in the judgment.

ROHIT KAPOOR, J.

1. Challenge in the present appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, is to the judgment and order dated 26.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-4231-2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent has been partially allowed and the order dated 10.11.2015 (Annexure P-9) declining to treat the period of absence from duty on account of suspension and dismissal, as period spent on duty, has been set aside. The appellants have been directed to regulate the suspension period from 07.04.2005 to 24.02.2006 and 27.08.2009 to 31.12.2009, as period spent on duty for all purposes. It has been further directed that if the respondent-petitioner submits representation with reference to any service benefits like promotion etc., the same shall be considered by the appellants in accordance with law and speaking order is required to be passed within a period of three months from the date of such representation.

2. The relevant facts as required to be noticed for adjudication of the lis between the parties are that the respondent-petitioner while working as Assistant Manager (Electrical) with the appellant-Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’), was caught red-handed in a trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Punjab on the allegations that he had demanded Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification for awarding a contract for maintenance and repair of electric works of the Corporation at Adampur, Jalandhar. An FIR was registered under section 7 read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Vigilance Bureau, Phase-I, Mohali, Punjab.

3. The respondent was placed under deemed suspension from the date of his detention i.e. from 07.04.2005 to 24.02.2006. The suspension was revoked vide order dated 17.02.2006. Upon conviction of the respondent vide judgment dated 27.08.2009, he was again suspended from 27.08.2009 to 21.12.2009, and vide an order of even date, he was dismissed with immediate effect, without holding any departmental enquiry, on the ground of his conviction in the criminal case involving moral turpitude, leading to forfeiture of his gratuity. It was ordered that the period of suspension will be treated as period not spent on duty. The departmental appeal filed by the respondent against the said order, was dismissed on 14.02.2012. The respondent-petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2009.

4. The criminal appeal filed by the respondent against his conviction, was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and he was acquitted vide judgment dated 20.08.2014. After the acquittal, he filed a departmental review for setting aside the dismissal order on 25.09.2014 and served a legal notice for getting the same decided expeditiously. Aggrieved of the inaction of the Corporation, he approached this Court by filing CWP No.12567 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.06.2015, with a direction to the competent authority of the Corporation to take a decision on the legal notice and to pass a speaking order.

5. In compliance of the afore-mentioned directions, the competent authority of the Corporation passed a speaking order dated 10.11.2015 (Annexure P-9) wherein it was held that the offence for which the petitioner was punished, involves moral turpitude and thus his dismissal from service upon his conviction was n