The Rajasthan High Court has held that there is no legally sustainable difference between 'honourable acquittal' and 'acquittal' for the purpose of granting service benefits to a suspended employee.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma set aside the orders of the employer-LIC (respondent) as per which the petitioner was denied the service benefits for his time when he was put under suspension owing to being implicated in a criminal case in which he was acquitted, on the ground that his acquittal was not “honourable”.

The Court observed that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960 (the “Rules”) did not make any distinction between the honourable acquittal and acquittal for any other reason, and in any event, the presumption of innocence of the employee stood restored upon his acquittal.

For context, the petitioner was working as a clerk with LIC when a criminal case was filed against him, and he was put under suspension. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Eventually, the petitioner got acquitted in the criminal case by being granted benefit of doubt.

Petitioner's suspension order was revoked and initially his suspension period was treated as a period spent on duty with him being entitled to full pay and allowance for the suspension period.

However, soon after, this order was cancelled and another order was passed as per which the period was treated as a absence period, and petitioner was held to be not entitled to the service benefits for such period. This order was challenged.

It was argued by the petitioner that the reason assigned for such order was that his acquittal was not honourable.

The respondents argued that the treatment of suspension period could not be similar in all cases, where the criminal charges against an employee were concluded in different manner. Where the sole basis of suspension was pendency of a criminal case, benefits of suspension period were contingent upon the finality of a criminal trial.

After hearing the contentions, the Court made the aforementioned observations to the effect that there was no distinction between an honourable acquittal and acquittal for any other reason, for the purpose of granting service benefits.

Further, the Court highlighted that where a convicted employee was granted benefits under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, despite his/her conviction, all the benefits relating to the service had to be released to him/her in light of Section 12 of the 1958 Act.

In this light, the Court opined,

“…it would be quite anomalous and legally untenable situation, where at the one hand a person like petitioner is there, who has been acquitted of all the criminal charges, yet the benefits have been withheld by the respondents narrating his acquittal as not Honourable and while on the other hand, in spite of there being a sustained conviction in the record of another employee, yet he was granted benefit of probation by the Competent Court, he cannot be deprived of the benefits arising out of his service conditions, including the benefits during suspension period.”

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was held to be entitled for treatment of his suspension period as being spent on duty for all practical purposes, including full pay and allowance.