C.R.RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 4511-4512 of 2017, Judgment Date: Mar 27, 2017
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) 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 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.
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.