Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4511-4512 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.207-208/2013]

C.R. RADHAKRISHNAN      APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS

STATE OF KERALA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the  denial  of  the  full  service  benefits  for  the period  he  was  kept  out  of  service  on  account  of conviction in a criminal case.  The conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted by the High Court vide order dated 31.07.2000 rendered in Crl.A. No.298  of 1995,  paragraph 13  of the  said judgment reads as follows:-

“13. On a close scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, I can find that the  prosecution  failed  to  conclusively prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.  Therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused and  he  is  to  be  acquitted.   The conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside.”

3. The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submits that since the appellant has been acquitted, under Rule  56  of  the  K.S.R.,  Part-I,  the  appellant  is entitled  to  full  service  benefits.   We  find  it difficult to appreciate the submission.  Rule 56(1)

1

Page 2

and (2) of K.S.R. reads as follows:-

“56. (1) When an officer who has been dismissed,  removed  or  compulsorily retired including an officer who has been compulsorily retired under Rule 60A, is reinstated  as  a  result  of  appeal  or review or would have been so reinstated, but for his retirement on superannuation while  under  suspension  or  not,  the authority  competent  to  order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order-

(a) regarding  the  pay  and allowances to be paid to the officer for  the  period  of  his  absence  from duty  including  the  period  of suspension  preceding  his  dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, (b) whether  or  not  the  said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty, and (c) in  the  case  of  an  officer who  was  compulsorily  retired  under Rule 60A and subsequently reinstated, for  the  recovery  of  the  relevant benefits, if any, already paid to him.

(2) Where the authority competent to order  reinstatement  is  of  opinion  that the  officer  who  had  been  dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, has been fully  exonerated,  the  officer  shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6) be paid the full pay and allowances to

2

Page 3

which he would have been entitled had he not  been  dismissed,  removed  or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be:

Provided that where such authority is of opinion that the termination of the proceedings  instituted  against  the officer  had  been  delayed  for  reasons directly attributable to the officer, it may, after giving him an opportunity to make  his  representation  and  after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the officer shall  subject  to  the  provisions  of sub-rule (7), be paid for the period of such delay, only such amount (not being the whole) of such pay and allowances as it may determine.”

4. This is not a case where the appellant has been fully  exonerated,  meaning  thereby  an  honourable acquittal.  Learned counsel for the appellant submits that going by the judgment, the finding arrived at by the  High  Court  in  the  criminal  appeal  regarding benefit  of  doubt  is  not  correct.   We  are  afraid, under the present proceedings, we cannot appreciate the above submission.  The correctness or otherwise of the judgment in the Criminal Appeal is not the subject matter of this case.  In these proceedings we can only look at the findings in the judgment.  The acquittal is only on benefit of doubt.  Thus, we find no  merits  in  these  appeals  and  the  same  are, accordingly, dismissed.

3

Page 4

5. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 6. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

NEW DELHI; MARCH 27, 2017.

4