The Rajasthan High Court has consistently held that when a government employee is acquitted in a criminal case or faces criminal proceedings that are unrelated to their official duties, denying them service-related financial benefits is unjust and legally impermissible. In one such ruling, the Court determined that an employee who was suspended during criminal charges and later acquitted cannot be limited only to the subsistence allowance if there is no departmental inquiry. The Court viewed such a restriction as tantamount to punishment, since the criminal court’s acquittal shows that the basis for depriving full salary was no longer valid.
In another case, the Court addressed a situation where a junior engineer was acquitted on the ground of “benefit of doubt” and yet had been denied his full salary arrears for the period he was suspended. The Court rejected the argument that the benefit-of-doubt acquittal justified withholding his dues, observing that an acquittal implies absence of sufficient incriminating evidence, and therefore the suspension should be regularized with full pay, with interest according to service rules.
The Court has also held that pension and gratuity are not discretionary rewards but earned rights, and cannot be withheld merely because criminal appeals or trials are pending if those proceedings are unrelated to the employee’s official work. It found that denying such retiral benefits in these circumstances violates the employee’s right to life, since these payments often constitute their livelihood after retirement.
Through these rulings, the Rajasthan High Court emphasizes equity and fairness: once an employee is legally cleared of wrongdoing, especially when no departmental misconduct proceedings are initiated or sustained, their financial entitlements should be restored as though the suspension or accusation had never disrupted their service.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.