In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court addressed the issue of reinstating a suspended employee following an acquittal in a criminal case. The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, was suspended from 2002 to 2009 due to his involvement in a criminal proceeding. Upon his acquittal in 2009, and the subsequent dismissal of the state's appeal in 2011, he was reinstated. However, the state withheld his salary for the suspension period, citing that his acquittal was based on the "benefit of doubt."
Justice Arun Monga criticized the state's rationale as "insipid," emphasizing that the acquittal indicated a lack of incriminating evidence against the petitioner. The court opined that once a competent court thoroughly examines the evidence and finds it insufficient to establish criminal culpability, an acquittal—whether termed as "benefit of doubt" or otherwise—should not be used to deny an employee their rightful financial entitlements.
The court further highlighted the professional hardships, humiliation, and ignominy the petitioner endured during his suspension. It asserted that equity demands full compensation for the period of unjust suspension, as the reason for such suspension was no longer valid post-acquittal.
This ruling underscores the principle that an acquittal, irrespective of the terminology used, signifies the absence of sufficient evidence to establish guilt. Therefore, denying an employee their legitimate financial entitlements based on a "benefit of doubt" acquittal is deemed unfair, unjust, and arbitrary.
The court directed the state to disburse the withheld salary for the suspension period to the petitioner, along with applicable interest as per service rules. This judgment reinforces the protection of employees' rights and ensures that they are not unjustly deprived of their financial entitlements following an acquittal in criminal proceedings.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.