http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: KRISHNAKANT RAGHUNATH BIBHAVNEKAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard counsel on both sides.      The  appellant  while  working  as  compositor  in  the Government of India Printing Press, was charged for offences punishable, inter  alia, under  Section 409  of IPC. Pending trial, he was kept under suspension and was paid subsistence allowance.     After  his   acquittal,  the   appellant  was reinstated  but   the  respondents   did   not   grant   the consequential benefits  to him.  Consequently, the appellant approached the  Administrative Tribunal, The Tribunal by the impugned order  dated 27th  April, 1995  in  OA  No.  40/92, dismissed the  application. Thus,  this  appeal  by  special leave.      Mr. Ranjit  Kumar, learned  counsel for  the appellant, contends that  under Rule  72(3) of  the  Maharashtra  civil services (Joining Time, foreign Services, and Payment during Suspension, dismissal  and Removal)  Rules, 1991 (for short, the ’Rules’)  the Rules  cannot be  applied to the appellant nor would  the respondents  be  justified  in  treating  the period  of   suspension  of  appellant,  as  the  period  of suspension, as  not being warranted under the Rules. We find no  force  in  the  contention.  It  is  true  that  when  a Government servant  is acquitted  of offences,  he would  be entitled to  reinstatement. But  the question is: whether he would be  entitled to  all consequential  benefits including the pensionary  benefits treating  the suspension  period as duty period,  as contended  by Shri Ranjit Kumar? The object of sanction  of law  behind prosecution  is to put an end to crime against  the  society  and  laws  thereby  intends  to restore  social   order  and   stability.  The   purpose  of prosecution of a public servant is to maintain discipline in service,  integrity,   honesty  and   truthful  conduct   in performance of  public duty or for modulation of his conduct to  further   the  efficiency   in   public   service.   The Constitution has given full faith and credit to public acts, conduct of  a public servant has to be an open book: corrupt would be  known  to  everyone.  The  reputation  would  gain notoriety. Though  legal evidence  may  be  insufficient  to bring home  the guilt beyond doubt or fool proof. The act of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

reinstatement  sends   ripples  among   the  people  in  the office/locality and  sows wrong  signals for degeneration of morality,  integrity  and  rightful  conduct  and  efficient performance of  public duty. The constitutional animation of public faith  and credit  given to  public  acts,  would  be undermined. Every  act or  the conduct  of a  public servant should   be   to   effectuate   the   public   purpose   and constitutional objective.  Public  servant  renders  himself accountable to  the public. The very cause for suspension of the petitioner  and taking  punitive action  against him was his conduct  that led  to the  prosecution of  him  for  the offences under the Indian Penal Code. If the conduct alleged is the  foundation for  prosecution, though  it may  end  in acquittal on  appreciation or  lack of  sufficient evidence, the  question   emerges:  whether   the  Government  servant prosecuted for commission of defalcation of public funds and fabrication f the records, though culminated into acquittal, is entitled to be reinstated with consequential benefits? In our considered  view, this  grant of  consequential benefits with all back wages etc. cannot be as a matter of course. We think that  it would  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 acuittal,  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.      Under these  circumstances, we  do not  think that  the Tribunal has committed any error.      The  appeal   is  accordingly  dismissed  but,  in  the circumstances of this case, without costs.