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.