Mere "Benefit Of Doubt" Acquittal Can't Be Used As Ruse To Deprive Employee Of Legitimate Financial Entitlements: Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the petitioner (Junior Engineer) who was under suspension between 2002 to 2009 due to a criminal case in which he eventually got acquitted, and his service were also restored but was denied the payment of arrears on the ground that his acquittal was merely based on benefit of doubt.The bench of Justice Arun Monga termed this stance taken by the State...
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the petitioner (Junior Engineer) who was under suspension between 2002 to 2009 due to a criminal case in which he eventually got acquitted, and his service were also restored but was denied the payment of arrears on the ground that his acquittal was merely based on benefit of doubt.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga termed this stance taken by the State as “insipid” and opined that it was only when no evidence was found against the accused that the Court acquitted him. And once acquitted, relying on “benefit of doubt” as a reason to deny him arrears was not only unfair, unjust and arbitrary, but also against the principle of restoring him to his rightful position as was before suspension.
The Court further ruled that even based on equity, since the petitioner had to suffer professional hardship, humiliation and ignominy of suspension, he should not be deprived of legitimate financial entitlements and be compensated fully for the period of unjust suspension.
The petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer and he was suspended due to a criminal case under Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1958, from 2002 to 2009. Eventually, he was acquitted in 2009, and the State's appeal against it was also rejected in 2011. The petitioner was reinstated in service in 2009. However, his salary for the suspended period was withheld against which the petition was filed.
After hearing the contentions, the Court held that,
“once a competent Court has threadbare gone into the evidence adduced by both the sides and found that there was no sufficient material on record which was incriminating enough so as to fasten any criminal culpability on the accused, merely because the accused has been acquitted on the ground that benefit of doubt would not mean that there was otherwise any evidence available.”
It was stated that an acquittal signified absence of sufficient evidence to establish culpability and once acquittal was done, the petitioner should have been given benefit of the same since the reason for such suspension was no longer valid.
“A mere "benefit of doubt" acquittal cannot be used as a ruse to deprive an employee of legitimate financial entitlements…Equity demands that he be compensated fully for the period he was unjustly suspended.”
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the State was directed to pay the dues of the petitioner for his suspension period along with interest as per the service rules.
Title: Nathu Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 46