Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dnyaneshwar Kashinath Shingane, was an Assistant Teacher working with Zilla Parishad Primary School in Jafrabad, Jalna. He was arrested on 20.03.2013 in connection with an FIR under Sections 498-A, 307, 494 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Due to his custody exceeding 48 hours, he was placed under suspension by order dated 04.07.2013 with effect from the date of arrest. During the pendency of the criminal prosecution, a preliminary enquiry was conducted to determine whether disciplinary proceedings were warranted. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 05.04.2016 recommending that no disciplinary proceedings be initiated. Subsequently, in Sessions Case No.77 of 2013, the petitioner was acquitted by judgment and order dated 22.10.2016. He was reinstated by order dated 13.04.2017. A show cause notice was issued to him on 09.04.2018 proposing to treat the suspension period from 20.03.2013 to 30.04.2017 only as qualifying service for pension, denying him pay and allowances for that period. The petitioner submitted his representation on 23.04.2018, but the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad passed an order on 31.05.2019/03.06.2019 directing that the suspension period from 20.03.2013 to 13.04.2017 be treated only for payment of subsistence allowance and counted only towards qualifying service for pension. His appeal to the Divisional Commissioner was rejected on 20.07.2021. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging both orders. The court considered the provisions of Rule 26 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which deals with the treatment of suspension period. The court noted that the petitioner was acquitted on merits and the disciplinary authority had already decided not to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The court held that in such circumstances, the suspension period must be treated as duty for all purposes, including full pay and allowances. The court distinguished between acquittal on merits and acquittal by giving benefit of doubt, stating that only in the latter case could the authority decide otherwise. The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the respondents to treat the suspension period as duty period and pay the petitioner full pay and allowances for that period, with consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suspension Period - Treatment After Acquittal - Rule 26 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, was arrested and suspended from 20.03.2013 to 30.04.2017. He was acquitted in the criminal case on 22.10.2016. The authorities treated the suspension period as suspension for pay and allowances but counted it as qualifying service for pension. The court held that since the petitioner was acquitted and the disciplinary authority decided not to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the suspension period must be treated as duty for all purposes, including full pay and allowances, following the principle that an employee should not suffer for the period he was kept away from duty due to circumstances beyond his control. (Paras 6-8) B) Service Law - Acquittal - Benefit of Doubt vs. Full Acquittal - Rule 26 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 - The court distinguished between acquittal on merits and acquittal by giving benefit of doubt. It held that when an employee is acquitted on merits, the suspension period should be treated as duty period. However, if acquitted by giving benefit of doubt, the authority may decide otherwise. In this case, the petitioner was acquitted on merits, and the disciplinary authority had already decided not to initiate proceedings, so the suspension period must be treated as duty. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the period of suspension of a government employee who has been acquitted in a criminal case should be treated as suspension period or as duty period for the purpose of pay and allowances.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.05.2019 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna and order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner from 20.03.2013 to 13.04.2017 as duty period for all purposes and pay him full pay and allowances for that period, with consequential benefits. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Suspension period treatment after acquittal
- Rule 26 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules
- 1968
- distinction between acquittal on merits and benefit of doubt
- full pay and allowances for suspension period
