Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Girish H S vs South Western Railway on 29 January, 2026
1
O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00442/2024
Order Reserved on: 19.1.2026
Date of Order: 29.01.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Girish H.S.,
S/o Swamy Gowda,
Aged 35 years, working as Technician Gr.III,
Central Workshop, South Western Railway,
Ashokapuram, Mysuru-570 008,
Residing at # 194,
Hosakote Village,
Yelawala Hobli, Mysuru-571 130. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Shri.A.R.Holla)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
By General Manager,
South Western Railway,
Rail Soudha, Gadag Road,
Hubballi-580 020.
2. The Chief Workshop Manager,
South Western Railway,
Central Workshop,
Mysuru South-570 008.
3. The Chief Personnel Officer,
SHAIN SHAINEY
CAT
VIJU
EY BANGALORE
2026.02.03
VIJU 09:47:13+05'30'
2
O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
Mysuru Division,
South Western Railway,
Mysuru-570 021. ...Respondents
(By Shri S.Prakash Shetty for Respondent Nos.1 to 3)
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act. 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"1. To quash the Order No. S/P.535/TV/Welding/Vol III/F.No. W-9 (1) dated 09.10.2023, issued by the respondent No. 3, Annexure-A9.
ii. Direct the respondents to extend him the monetary benefits to the applicant on his promotional as Technician Grade-II and Technician Grade-l with effect from 26.12.2017 and 28.12.2019, respectively consequent upon his acquittal vide the judgement dated: 30.11.2022 in Spl. C/486/2017.
iii. Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The above mentioned reliefs are claimed on the following grounds and legal provisions:
"(i) The applicant submits that the criminal proceeding initiated against him has no SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 3 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE relation to his duties as an employee of the Railways. The allegation made against him is concerned to his personal matter. In any event, the criminal proceedings concluded in his acquittal. The court has held that the evidence in support of the charge against is not sufficient to prove the charge. As such, it is an honorable acquittal and the applicant is entitled to all the consequential benefits as if no criminal proceeding has been initiated against him. On the other hand, the applicant is entitled to get full salary during the period he was kept out of service due to criminal proceeding, promotion etc.
(ii) There is no justification to deny him the full salary during the period the criminal proceeding was pending against him. The allegations based on which the criminal proceeding was initiated against him does not constitute any offence. In any event, there was no evidence in support of the charge framed in the criminal proceeding. He is not liable to suffer any financial loss consequent upon his promotion to Tech-II and Tech-1 posts on proforma basis. The proforma promotions given to him are liable to be modified as regular promotions and the applicant is entitled to full salary and allowances during the period. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-A9 is liable to be modified accordingly.
iii) The respondents have erred in holding that the applicant was not acquitted of the charge honorably. The applicant was acquitted as there was no evidence in support of the charge framed in the criminal proceedings. The view taken by the respondents is erroneous."
SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 4 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
3. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the synopsis are that the applicant was appointed as Helper at Central Workshop, South Western Railway, Mysuru on 13.05.2013. He was promoted as Technician Grade-III on the usual course. It was alleged that the applicant was in love with one Kum. Shailaja, belonging to the Scheduled Caste and residing in Mysuru. Her mother complained to the police that the applicant had declined to marry her as promised earlier and, hence, the girl made an attempt to commit suicide on 22.06.2017. In the said background, the applicant was arrested by the police on 24.06.2017 and released on bail on 31.07.2017. The applicant was placed under suspension on 23.06.2017 in terms of Rule 5(2) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. Kum. Shailaja died on 01.09.2017 in the hospital. The criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant for the offenses under Section 417 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (POA) act, 1989. The criminal proceedings ended in acquittal of the applicant in Spl. Case/486/2017 in the Court of the VI Addl. District and Special Judge, Mysuru, vide judgment dated 30.11.2022. The applicant submitted a representation to respondent No.2 on 08.03.2023 with a request to treat his deemed suspension period from SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 5 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE 23.06.2017 to 04.08.2017 as on duty and for promotion due to him since 2017. In response to the same, the applicant has been informed by an order dated 18.07.2023 that he is now promoted to the post of Tech-II in Level-4 on par with his immediate junior Sri. Jay Ram Sinha with effect from 26.12.2017 on a proforma basis and actual benefits are allowed from the date of shouldering responsibility for the post.
4. The applicant has filed this application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his absence from 23.06.2017 to 03.11.2022 as on duty and make payment of full salary and grant promotions due to him from time to time with the consequential benefits.
5. On notice, respondents have filed their reply statement. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant.
6. When the case came up for final hearing on 19.1.2026, learned counsel Shri.A.R.Holla for the applicant and Shri.S.Prakash Shetty for the respondents were present and heard.
7. We have carefully gone through the records and considered the rival contentions of both parties.
SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 6 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
8. The basic facts of the case are not denied: that the applicant was initially appointed as a Helper in Central Workshops Railways, South Western Railway, Mysuru South with effect from 13.05.2013. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Technician Gr.III with effect from 03.10.2015 and the case the applicant had come up for next promotion in the year 2017 for the post of Technician Gr.II in level 4. However, he was not considered for promotion since there was a criminal case in SPL.C/486/2017 pending against him in the Hon'ble Court of VI Addl. District and Special Judge, Mysuru. Hence, in view of the charge sheeting and pending criminal case and police custody for a period exceeding forty-eight hours on 23.06.2017, the applicant was kept under deemed suspension vide Assistant Workshop Manager, Central Workshop, Mysuru South, order No.S/P.227/IV/1743 dated 02.08.2017 - Annexure A-1. Later, the VI Add. District and Special Judge, Mysuru vide his order dated 30.11.2022, acquitted the official in the criminal case, and he was considered for promotion to the post of Technician Gr.II in Level 4, and he was promoted to the post of Technician Gr. II with effect from 26.12.2017, on a proforma basis, on par with his immediate junior employee, Sri.Jay Ram Sinha vide O.O No.212/2023 dated SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 7 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE 18.07.2023 and on actual basis from the date of shouldering higher responsibility of the post of Technician Gr.II in Level-4 and his name was interpolated in the seniority list of Technician Gr. II in level 4 at the appropriate place. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Technician Gr.I in Level 5 with effect from 28.12.2019 vide O.O No.245/2023 dated 10/12.08.2023 on a proforma basis on par with his junior Sri. Jay Ram Sinha and actual benefits allowed from the date of shouldering higher responsibility of the post by him.
9. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a letter dated 02.08.2023 followed by another letter dated 14.09.2023 to the office of the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, Central Workshops, Mysuru South, requesting grant of promotion and pay fixation retrospectively.
10. After due consideration, the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, Central Workshops, Mysuru South, informed the applicant vide letter No.S/P.535/IV/Welding/Vol.III/F.No.W-9(1) dated 09.10.2023, which is produced as Annexure A9 that he is not eligible for arrears of pay following his promotion on the ground that his acquittal in the criminal proceeding was based on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty, and it cannot qualify as an honourable acquittal. The applicant was not fully exonerated in the SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 8 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE criminal case. The letter references para 3.5 of RBE No.13/1993 dated 21.01.1993, which, inter-alia, states that 'Where the proceedings, whether disciplinary or criminal, are, for example, delayed at the instance of the employee or the clearance in the disciplinary proceedings or acquittal in the criminal proceedings is with benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability of evidence due to the acts attributable to the employee etc.
11. In the backdrop of these undisputed facts, the argument of the applicant is that he has a right to be promoted. Let us examine all the grounds claimed by the applicant in his Original Application one by one.
12. In paragraph 5(i), the applicant submits that the criminal proceeding initiated against him has no relation to his duties as an employee of the Railways. The allegation made against him is concerned with his personal matters. In any event, the criminal proceedings concluded in his acquittal. The court has held that the evidence in support of the charge against him is not sufficient to prove the charge. As such, it is an honourable acquittal and the applicant is entitled to all the consequential benefits as if no criminal proceeding has been initiated against him. On the other hand, the applicant is SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 9 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE entitled to get full salary during the period he was kept out of service due to criminal proceedings, promotion etc. Hence, he must get all the reliefs claimed.
To which the respondents, in their reply statement, submitted that the applicant's assertion that the criminal case that was pending against him was unrelated to his job is unpersuasive and indicates a failure to recognize the significant reputational risks such legal matters pose to both himself and the organization he represents. The administration appropriately decided not to grant the applicant any arrears, as his acquittal was based on insufficient evidence to establish his guilt. The court acquitted him by giving him the benefit of the doubt, which does not constitute a "full exoneration," and therefore, it cannot be considered an 'honourable acquittal'. While it is clear from the submissions of the parties that the charge sheeting in the criminal case and the applicant's detention in custody was unrelated to his work, and so his predicament was entirely personal and the employer was not involved in his prosecution, hence any consequences flowing out of his predicament, he himself will have to solely bear its consequences. Hence in our considered opinion the assertions of the applicant in this paragraph is not convincing.
The applicant has further asserted that he was honourably SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 10 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE acquitted hence he should get retrospective benefits. We will come to this point later whether his case was an honourable acquittal or otherwise, i.e., one of the points of contention between the parties.
13. In paragraph 5(ii), the applicant submits that there is no justification to deny him the full salary during the period the criminal proceeding was pending against him. The allegations based on which the criminal proceeding was initiated against him do not constitute any offense. In any event, there was no evidence in support of the charge framed in the criminal proceeding. He is not liable to suffer any financial loss consequent upon his promotion to Tech-II and Tech-1 posts on a proforma basis. The proforma promotions given to him are liable to be modified as regular promotions and the applicant is entitled to full salary and allowances during the period. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-A9 is liable to be modified accordingly.
To which the respondents have submitted that the applicant's claim that the criminal proceedings initiated against him do not amount to an offense, and therefore he should not face any financial repercussions, is a hollow argument lacking substantial merit. Such a statement could only come from someone unaware of the potential SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 11 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE consequences their actions may have on their personal reputation, their employer, or the broader society. The administration correctly determined that the applicant is not entitled to any arrears, as his acquittal was premised on a finding of insufficient evidence to substantiate his guilt. The court's decision to acquit him was based on the principle of in dubio pro reo (when in doubt, for the accused), which does not equate to a "full exoneration." Consequently, this acquittal lacks the characteristics of an 'honourable acquittal', as it does not clear him of all culpability in a manner that would warrant any financial restitution.
Hence, in this paragraph also, the main contention is about whether the applicant is fully acquitted or honourably acquitted or not, which we will further discuss in detail subsequently.
14. In paragraph 5(iii), the applicant submits that the respondents have erred in holding that the applicant was not acquitted of the charge honourably. The applicant was acquitted as there was no evidence in support of the charge framed in the criminal proceedings. The view taken by the respondents is erroneous. SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 12 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE To which the respondents submitted that the administration has simply adhered to the established rules and procedures in this matter. The decision not to grant the applicant any arrears was based on a well-founded principal: the applicant's acquittal in the criminal proceedings was decided on insufficient evidence for a conviction and therefore cannot be classified as an 'honourable acquittal'.
Hence, this point is also not something different than what is stated in paragraphs 5(i) and 5(ii).
15. Let us examine the impugned order based on these assertions. The impugned order dated 9.10.2023 mentions the following:
"Sub: Your representation dated 14.09.2023 requesting for grant of arrears of pay from the date of promotions.
Ref
: 1) This office O.O.No.272/2023
dated:09.09.2023.
2) This office 0.O.No.245/2023 dated: 12.08.2023.
3) This office O.O.No.212/2023 dated:
18.07.2023.
In your representation dated 14/09/2023 you have requested for payment of arrears of pay from the date of proforma promotion instead of from the date of shouldering higher responsibility arising SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 13 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE out of your promotion to the post of Tech-Land Tech-II ordered vide the Office Orders cited above at Sl.No. (2) and (3) on your acquittal in SPL. C/486/2017.
Your representation has been examined in detail and you are advised as under:
You have been acquitted in the Case No. SPL.C/486/2017 for the alleged offence by the Hon'ble Court of VI Addl. Dist. and spl. Judge, Mysuru, on the ground that there was no sufficient material to find you guilty.
You are not eligible for arrears of pay on promotions since in-terms of Railway Board's letter No.E(D&A)92 RG 6-149 (A)(RBE 13/1993) dated 21/01/1993 Para.3.5, "where the proceedings, whether disciplinary or criminal, are, for example delayed at the instance of the employee or the clearance in the disciplinary proceedings or acquittal in the criminal proceedings is with benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability of evidence due to the acts attributable to the employee etc. These are only some of the circumstances where such denial can be justified". Since your acquittal in the criminal proceeding was based on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to find you guilty, the same cannot be regarded as an honourable acquittal.
Due to the aforementioned reasons, your request for payment of arrears for the proforma-treated periods resulting from promotions to the post of Tech-I and Tech-II is not agreed to."
16. Simple reading of the said order shows clearly that the main premise made out by the respondents, who have although given him SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 14 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE two proforma promotions to the post of Technician Gr.II and Technician Gr.I from the retrospective dates from the date from which his juniors were promoted, and his seniority is restored. However, the administration has not agreed to consider the applicant being eligible for arrears of pay for the period of proforma promotion, since his acquittal in the criminal proceedings was based on the ground that there was insufficient evidence and the same is asserted by the administration recorded as not as an 'honourable acquittal'. The administration has quoted the Railway Board letter No.E(D&A)92 RG 6-149 (A)(RBE 13/1993) dated 21/01/1993 Para.3.5, "where the proceedings, whether disciplinary or criminal, are, for example delayed at the instance of the employee or the clearance in the disciplinary proceedings or acquittal in the criminal proceedings is with benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability of evidence due to the acts attributable to the employee etc. These are only some of the circumstances where such denial can be justified". And since the acquittal in the criminal proceedings of the applicant was based on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty, the same was not recorded as an 'honourable acquittal' by his employer, the respondent department.
17. To examine the question of 'honourable acquittal', let us see the SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 15 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE order of acquittal which is filed as Annexure A-2 in the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the Court of the VI Addl. District and Special Judge, Mysuru in SPL.C/486/2017 wherein inter-alia other things, the Court ordered the following:
"60. On overall appreciation of entire material both ocular and documentary evidence it cannot be found that the accused had a guilty mind to instigate deceased to commit suicide. As per the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, it is the intention of the accused that the deceased must die and not the intention of the deceased. Here in this case there is nothing on record that he has done positive Act or expressed the words to instigate or abate deceased to commit suicide. It is the argument of the prosecution that even the Act on part of the accused is sufficient to hold him guilty mind of instigation. Here in this case there is a love affair between deceased and accused which hit the caste barriers. Though, it is alleged that the accused acted as if he had a love to the deceased and acting he had physical relation and after that he denied deceased which deceased cannot accept and committed suicide. On appreciation of evidence that the accused had a guilty mind, he acted as if he had a love with the deceased and used her is not found. These facts are the state of mind inferring the guilty mind is not sufficient to hold accused guilty of the offence and he must be convicted. On appreciation of evidence the prosecution though tried best to prove the guilt of the accused but the said material is not sufficient to hold accused had guilty mind as motive of abetment and he is guilty of the offense of abetting deceased to commit suicide. In considered view of this court the accused deserves to be acquitted for the alleged offence SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 16 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE as there is no sufficient material to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly. point No.1 as Negative.
Point No.6:
61. In view of the foregoing discussion on Points No.1 to 5 and the reasons assigned thereof, this court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER By acting U/Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused is hereby ACQUITTED for the offences punishable U/Sec.417 and 306 of IPC and U/Sec.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes [PoA] Act 1989.
The bail bond of the accused and his surety bond stands cancelled.
M.0.1 mobile phone, having some value, shall be confiscated to the State.
Surety furnished U/Sec.437-A is in force for 6 months or till appeal period is over.
Further, it is recommended to the DLSA, to consider quantum of compensation under Victim Compensation Scheme provided U/Sec.357-A of Cr.P.C, and the matter is referred to DLSA, to consider quantum of victim compensation for PW.1.
Office is directed to refer the case to DLSA, for consideration of victim compensation to PW.1, U/Sec.357-A of Cr.P.C."
18. Clearly, the conclusion of the Court in the above order is that SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 17 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE the accused deserves to be acquitted of the alleged offense as there is no sufficient material to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
It is needless to say that there is no point made out or finding given that the prosecution, as such, was frivolous, malicious, devoid of merit or wrong and the applicant was completely innocent of the charges made against him.
19. At the time of argument, the Tribunal asked both the counsel of the applicant and the respondents to help the court with the relevant citations. But none of the parties volunteered to place before us any citations.
20. In the absence of any lead from the parties, we find that generally in Indian service jurisprudence, whenever a promotion is withheld due to a criminal trial and the employee is eventually acquitted, the entitlement to back wages for the period of retrospective promotion is not automatic. The Court distinguishes between an "Honourable Acquittal" and an "Acquittal due to lack of Evidence/ Benefit of Doubt". The general rule of no work no pay applies. Generally, if an employee is granted a retrospective promotion after being cleared of charges, the promotion is notional. This means the employee gets the seniority and rank from the back date, but not the SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 18 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE salary. The basic reasoning being the employer was not at fault for the trial and the employee did not actually perform the duties of the higher post during that period.
21. In his argument the applicant essentially wanted to shift his responsibilities to the employer, saying that as his criminal case is a private affair and not related to his work, if the employer had kept him under suspension due to the pendency of the case, now he should be given retrospective promotion as well as the back wages. But this line of argument is not convincing. When the Criminal Case was a private affair and not prosecuted by the respondent department, and the employee has not shouldered higher responsibility in the respondent's organisation, no case in our considered opinion is made out to shift the consequences of such private predicament of being embroiled in a serious criminal case on the employer and consequently there is no case for us to direct the employer to pay the applicant all back wages from the date of the two retrospective promotions.
22. In the case of Union of India and others v. Jaipal Singh ((2004) 1 SCC 121), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the department 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 SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 19 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE their involvement in a criminal case and that the back wages are not a right after acquittal unless the employer was a prosecutor himself.
"4. On a careful consideration of the matter and the materials on record, including the judgment and orders brought to our notice, we are of the view that it is well accepted that an order rejecting a special leave petition at the threshold without detailed reasons therefore does not constitute any declaration of law by this Court or constitute a binding precedent. Per contra, the decision relied upon for the appellant is one on merits and for reasons specifically recorded therefore and operates as a binding precedent as well. On going through the same, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken in [1996] 11 SCC 603 (supra). If prosecution, which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the person concerned was at the behest or by department itself, perhaps different considerations may arise. On the other hand, if as a citizen the employee or a public servant got involved in a criminal case and it after initial conviction by the trial court, he gets acquittal on appeal subsequently, the department cannot in any manner be found fault with for having kept him out of service, since the law obliges, a person convicted of an offence to be so kept out and not to be retained in service. Consequently, the reasons given in the decision relied upon, for the appellants are not only convincing but are in consonance with reasonableness as well. Though exception taken to that part of the order directing re-instatement cannot be sustained and the respondent has to be re-instated, in service, for the reason that the earlier discharge was on account of those criminal proceedings and conviction only, the appellants are well within their rights to deny back wages to the respondent for the period he was not in service. The SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 20 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE appellants cannot be made liable to pay for the period for which they could not avail of the services of the respondent. The High Court, in our view, committed a grave error, in allowing back wages also, without adverting to all such relevant aspects and considerations. Consequently, the order of the High Court in so far as it directed payment of back wages are liable to be and is hereby set aside.
5. The respondent will be entitled to back wages from the date of acquittal and except for the purpose of denying the respondent actual payment of back wages, that period also will be counted as period of service, without any break. The re- instatement, if not already done, in terms of the order of the High Court will be done within thirty days from today.
6. The appeal is allowed and disposed of on the above terms."
23. Clearly, the Hon'ble Apex Court had ruled that the department cannot be made liable to pay back wages if the period for which they could not avail the services of the employee. In the above-cited case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied on another Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Supdt. Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board reported in ((1996) 11 SCC 603 :
1997 SCC (L&S) 491 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court clarified the question of back wages and the Hon'ble Court held that the question of back wages would be considered only if action by way of SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 21 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE disciplinary proceedings has been taken against him and the action was found to be unsustainable in law, and he was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties. It reads as follows:
"2. This case does not warrant interference for the reason that, admittedly, the petitioner was charged for an offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC for his involvement in a crime committed on October 1, 1986. The Sessions Judge had convicted the petitioner under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. On that basis the respondents had taken action to have him dismissed from service since he was working as Junior Clerk in the respondent-Electricity Board. The petitioner challenged the validity of the dismissal order by way of a special civil application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Pending disposal, the Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated October 14,1992 acquitted him of the offence. Consequently, while disposing of the writ petition, the learned single judge directed the respondent to reinstate him into the service with continuity of the service, but denied back wages. The petitioner then filed letters Patent Appeal No.319/93 which was dismissed by the impugned order dated August 26,1993. Thus, this special leave petition.
3. The reinstatement of the petitioner into the service has already been ordered by the High Court. The only question is: whether he is entitled to back wages? It was his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken into account for his not being in service of the respondent. Consequent upon his acquittal, he is entitled to reinstatement for the reason that his service was terminated on the basic of the conviction by operation of proviso to the statutory rules SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 22 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE applicable the situation. The question of back wages would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of disciplinary proceeding and the action was found to be unsustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties. In that context, his conduct becomes relevant, Each case requires to be considered in his own backdrops. In this case, since the petitioner had involved himself in a crime, though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and incarceration in jail. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of back wages. The learned single judge and the Division Bench have not committed any error of law warranting interference.
4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed."
24. Further, in the case of Management of the Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal reported in (1994) 1 SCC 541, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the principle of "no work, no pay" will apply for their own involvement in a criminal case.
25. In this present Original Application, the employer was not a prosecutor, as the case related to the accused who was in love with the deceased Shailaja on the pretext of marrying her, took her to places like parks, cinemas etc. and thereafter refused to marry her on the ground that she belonged to a scheduled tribe community and the SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 23 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE lady consequently attempted suicide by taking some unknown medicine and fell unconscious. Thereafter, she was shifted to the hospital and there she was taking treatment as an inpatient from 22.6.2017 to 1.9.2017 and died on 1.9.2017 during the treatment period. Hence, the prosecution brought out the case that the accused not being a member of the Scheduled Caster and Scheduled Tribe, though knowing well that the deceased is a member of the Scheduled Tribe, made her believe that he would marry her, cheated her, disappointed by the actions of the accused, she committed suicide by taking some unknown medicines and died on 1.9.2017 and thereby the accused committed an offense punishable U/Sec.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act, 1989. The applicant was under arrest and hence he was also suspended. During the pendency of the case, he was not given his two due promotions.
26. In the instant case also, it is not the respondent department who is a prosecutor or they have instituted or conducted any disciplinary case against him. In his private capacity the applicant got involved in a serious criminal case and his acquittal is based on lack of conclusive evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, it cannot be considered as an 'honourable acquittal'. Following reasoning are relevant:
SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 24 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE In the case of Imtivaz Ahmad Malla v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 2023 SC 1308 (Dated-28.02.2023), it was observed that apart from the fact that the phrase "honourable acquittal" has not been defined anywhere in the Criminal Procedure Code, as transpiring from the afore-stated order passed in the criminal case for which the petitioner was tried, the petitioner was afforded a benefit of doubt in view of the contradictory evidence which had 5 come on record, also as the investigating officer was not examined by the prosecution.
In case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another Vs. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685, Hon'ble Apex Court on similar issues as involved in the above case observed as under:
"25. The expression "honourable acquittal" was considered by this Court in S. Samuthiram [Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 566 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229] . In that case this Court was concerned with a situation where disciplinary proceedings were initiated against a police officer.
Criminal case was pending against him under Section 509 IPC and under Section 4 of the Eve- Teasing Act. He was acquitted in that case because of the non-examination of key witnesses. There was a serious flaw in the conduct of the criminal case. Two material witnesses turned hostile. Referring to the judgment of this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [(1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 594 : (1994) 26 ATC 619] , where in somewhat similar fact situation, this SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 25 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Court upheld a bank's action of refusing to reinstate an employee in service on the ground that in the criminal case he was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt and, therefore, it was not an honourable acquittal, this Court held that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings. This Court observed that the expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame" and "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Criminal Procedure Code or the Penal Code. They are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". This Court expressed that when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution case and the prosecution miserably fails to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted. The expression "honourable acquittal" had also come up for consideration in other cases namely, Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541 ; and in R.P. Kapur Vs. Union of India and Another, AIR 1964 SC 787 whereby it was held inter alia that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to the reinstatement in service. The acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. As such, the expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame", "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, and it is difficult to define precisely what is meant by expressions "honourable acquittal".
What is honourable acquittal, was considered by the Hon'ble SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 26 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Apex Court in Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram [Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 :
(2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 566 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 229] , in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: (SCC p. 609, para 24) "24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal" came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [RBI v.
Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 594] . In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame", "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted."
In the case of Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar v. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in ((1997) 3 SCC 636, the Hon'ble Apex Court inter-alia other things ruled that acquittal based on insufficient evidence in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a person to back wages, pensionary benefits and other consequential SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 27 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE benefits on his reinstatement, where suspension is ordered pending criminal case. Competent authority is empowered to treat suspension period as not spent on duty after following principles of natural justice. Wherein the Court ruled the following:-
"4. ...................................We think that it would be deleterious to the maintenance of the discipline if a person suspended on valid considerations is given full back wages as a matter of course, on his acquittal, Two courses are open to the disciplinary authority, viz., it may enquire into misconduct unless, the self-same conduct was subject of charge and on trial the acquittal was recorded on a positive finding that the accused did not commit the offence at all; but acquittal is not on benefit of doubt given. Appropriate action may be taken thereon. Even otherwise, the authority may, on reinstatement after following the principle of natural justice, pass appropriate order including treating suspension period as period of not on duty , ( and on payment of subsistence allowance etc.) Rules 72(3), 72 (5)and 72 (7) of the Rules give a discretion to the disciplinary authority. Rule 72 also applies, as the action was taken after the acquittal by which date rule was in force. Therefore, when the suspension period was treated to be a suspension pending the trial and even after acquittal he was reinstated into service he would not be entitled to the consequential, he was reinstated into service, he would not be entitled to the consequential benefits. As a consequence, he would not be entitled to the benefits of nine increments as stated in para 6 of the additional affidavit. He is also not entitled to be treated as on duty from the date of suspension till the date of the acquittal for purpose of computation of pensionary benefits etc .
The appellant is also not entitled to any other consequential benefits as enumerated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the additional affidavit.
SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 28 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
5. Under these circumstances, we do not think that the Tribunal has committed any error.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances of this case, without costs." In another case the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 163 observed that while acquitting an accused on benefit of doubt Court cannot direct that he was not entitled to reinstatement in service and back wages and these matters to be considered by the Government. Hence, the government department retains the inherent power to take a decision on the matter and we do not find in the case of the applicant there is any unreasonable decision taken by the government department as the department was not the prosecutor nor it had initiated any disciplinary action against the employee. The criminal case was entirely a private predicament of the applicant.
27. We do not find anything put forth before us by the applicant which shows that the department was responsible for the prosecution or his situation or that his prosecution itself was malicious, and the criminal case was initiated by the department and was found to be malafide or fictitious or that there was any administrative delay SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 29 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE contributed by the Department for his acquittal or post acquittal reinstatement. When he was acquitted, the department generously gave him proforma promotion, not one, but two. And there was no unreasonably long time taken by the Department to give him such two proforma promotions. Hence, in our considered opinion, we do not find any reason to come to a conclusion that the applicant in this particular case has placed any material which makes the applicant eligible for any back wages from the dates of his two retrospective promotions.
28. Further, it is not the case of the applicant that the respondent's department initiated a department inquiry where he is exonerated completely and found innocent. Criminal case against the employee was completely his private predicament and circumstantial suspicion on his conduct and actions were largely contributed to his being prosecuted for serious offences, although the prosecution could not prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and the court acquitted him observing, "........ accused deserves to be acquitted for the alleged offence as there is no sufficient material to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt." Lack of conclusive evidence beyond reasonable doubt is essentially a benefit of the doubt, and it cannot be concluded that there was 'Honourable Acquittal' of the applicant. The Court has SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.02.03 VIJU 09:47:13+05'30' 30 O.A.No.170/442/2024/CAT/BANGALORE not found that the accused was falsely implicated or that there is no case at all and that he was wrongfully prevented from working and hence in our considered opinion there is no case made out by the applicant for any back wages. His acquittal is purely because of the prosecution failing to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt that is lack of sufficient evidence. It cannot be considered as an 'Honourable Acquittal' as asserted by the applicant. Hence, no case of monetary benefits on the two proforma promotion is established by the applicant for himself. We have carefully examined the impugned order dated 09.10.2023, and we find it to be a speaking order, giving reasonable details for the rejection for the request for the payment of arrears for the proforma treated period.
29. Considering all the above, we do not find any merit in the case of the applicant. Hence, we pass the following orders:-
The Original Application is dismissed as devoid of merit. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
sv
SHAIN SHAINEY
CAT
VIJU
EY BANGALORE
2026.02.03
VIJU 09:47:13+05'30'