KRISHNAKANT RAGHUNATH BIBHAVNEKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

            KRISHNAKANT RAGHUNATH BIBHAVNEKAR                                  A
                             v.
               STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                           FEBRUARY 28, 1997

         (K. RAMASWAMY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.)                              B

        Service Law :

     Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Services, and Pay-
ment during suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1991:
                                                                                c
       Rules 72(3), 72(5) and 72(7)-Reinstatement after suspension-Claim
for consequential benefits-Petitioner-employee prosecuted u/s. 409
!PC-During trial he was kept under suspension-Trial ended in acquit-
tal-Petitioner reinstated in service-Claim for consequnetial benefits rejected
by Tribunal:--lfeld, the very cause for suspension of petitioner was his conduct D
that led to prosecution of him-Though prosecution may end in acquittal on
appreciation or lack of sufficient evidence, grant of consequential benefits with
all back wages etc. cannot be as a matter of cause-In the circumstances,
petitioner would not be entitled to consequential benefits.

        CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1868 of E
1997.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.95 of the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay in R.P. No. 28 of 1995.

     Ranjeet Kumar, Ramesh Singh, Ms. Rakhi Verma and Ms. Bina                  F
Gupta for the Appellant.

        D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondents.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                               G
        Leave granted.

        We have heard counsel on both sides.

      The appellant while working as Compositor in the Government of
India Printing Press, was charged for offences punishable, inter alia, under H
                                    591
    592                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997) 2 S.C.R.

A Section 409 of IPC. Pending Trial, he was kept under suspension and was
    paid subsistence allowance. After his acquittal, the appellant was reinstated
    but the respondents did not grant the· consequential benefits to him.
    Consequently, the appellant approached the Administrative Tribunal. The
    Tribunal by the impugned order dated 27th April, 1995 in OA No. 40/92,
B   dismissed the application. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

         Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that
  under Rule 72(3) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign
  Services, and Payment during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules,
  1991 (for short, the 'Rules'), the Rules cannot be applied to the appellant
C nor would the respondents be justified in treating the period of suspension
  of appellant, as the period of suspension, as not being warranted under the
  Rules. We find no force in the contention. It is true that when a Govern-
  ment servant is acquitted of offences, he would be entitled to re-instate-
  ment. But the question is : whether he would be entitled to all
D consequential benefits including the pensionary benefits treating the
  suspension period as duty period, as contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar? The
  object of sanction of law behind prosecution is to put an end to crime
  against the society and laws thereby intends to restore social order and
  stability. The purpose of prosecution of a public servant is to maintain
  discipline in service, integrity, honesty and truthful conduct in performance
E of public duty or for modulation of his conduct to further the efficiency in
  public service. The Constitution has given full faith and credit to public
  acts. Conduct of a public servant has to be an open book; corrupt would
  be known to everyone. The reputation would gain notoriety. Though leg<!!
  evidence may be insufficient to bring home the guilt beyond doubt or
F fool-proof. The act of reinstatement sends ripples among the people in the
  office/locality and sows wrong signals for degeneration of morality, integrity
  and rightful conduct and efficient performance of public duty. The con- '
  stitutional animation of public faith and credit given to public acts, would
  be undermined. Every act or the conduct of a public servant should be to
  effectuate the public purpose and constitutional objective. Public servant
G renders himself accountable to the public. The very cause for suspension
  of the petitioner and taking punitive action against him was his conduct
  that led to the prosecution of him for the offences under the Indian Penal
  Code. If the conduct alleged is the foundation for prosecution, though it
  may end in acquittal on appreciation or lack of sufficient evidence, the
H question emerges : whether the Government servant prosecuted for com-
        KRISHNAKANTRAGHUNATHBIBHAVNEKARv. STATE                         593

mission of defalcation of public funds and fabrication of the records, A
though culminated into acqjuittal, is entitled to be reinstated with conse-
quential benefits? In our considered view, this grant of consequential
benefits with all back-wages etc. cannot be as a matter of course. We think
that it would be deleterious to the .maintenance of the discipline if a person
suspended on valid considerations is given full back wages as a matter of B
course, on his acquittal. Two courses are open to the disciplinary authority,
viz., it may enquire into misconduct unless, the self-same conduct was
subject of charge and on trial the acquittal was recorded on a positive
finding that the accused did not commit the offence at all; but acquittal is
not on benefit of doubt given. Appropriate action may be taken thereon.
Even otherwise, the authority may, on reinstatement after following the C
principle of natural justice, pass appropriate order including treating
suspension period as period of not on duty, (and on payment of subsistence
allowance etc.) Rules 72(3), 72(5) and 72(7) of the Rules give a discretion
to the disciplinary authority. Rule 72 also applies, as the action was taken
after the acquittal by which date rule was in force. Therefore, .when the D
suspension period was treated to be a suspension pending the trial arid
even after acquittal, he was reinstated into service, he would not be entitled
to the consequential benefits. As a consequence, he would not be entitled
to the benefits of nine increments as stated in para 6 of the additional
affidavit. He is also not entitled to be treated as on duty from the date of
suspension till the date of the acquittal for purpose of computation of E
pensionary benefits etc. The appellant is also not entitled to any other
consequential benefits as enumerated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the addi-
tional affidavit.

    Under these circumstances, we do not think that the Tribunal has
committed any error.                                                          F
      The appeal is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances of this
case, without costs.

R.P.                                                    Appeal dismissed.