Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 98 (KER)

K. Vikraman Pillai v. The State of Kerala

2003-02-06

M.RAMACHANDRAN

body2003
Judgment :- The petitioner had been subjected to criminal prosecution which ended in acquittal by the Judicial Ist Class Magistrate, Alappuzha in Calendar Case No.288/92. The proceedings concluded with the following observations. "Here is P.W.1's version that he took back the certificates from the police station. He has no case that the suitcase contained attested copies. But these attested copies are seen among the objects seized. The prosecution has not been able to spin a yarn about the accused properly. If has not gone about the business of getting the guilt of accused established. In the circumstances therefore accused is found not guilty of offences u/ss. 379 IPC. Point found accordingly". The petitioner had been suspended with effect from 06.02.92 and taking notice of the acquittal he had been reinstated in service by order dated 29.04.95. 2. The petitioner had represented that though he was being paid subsistence allowance all through out in view of the acquittal, he is entitled to full salary and service benefits for the period during which he had been kept out of service. The original petition is filed for enforcing the claim. 3. It may be necessary to note that he had been placed under suspension, since he was arrested by police and had been taken into custody and committed to jail. 4. The Director by Ext. P5 order has opined that it may not be justifiable for him for directing payment of the full salary and allowances for the period he underwent suspension. Against that he had filed an appeal to the Government and by Ext.P6, Government had reiterated the view of the Director, following a decision of this court in 1996 (2) KLj 467 "Acquitted of blame", according to the Government must mean a discharge brought about by a mere acquittal. 5. The petitioner had made reference to Rule 57 of Part I of Kerala Service Rules and had attempted to explain that in the case at hand he was entitled to a declaration that he will be entitled to full pay and allowances. Rule 56, inter alia refers to an adjudication about the pay of officer for the period concerned. The circumstances of the case is to be noticed, and full amount has to be given only in the event of the officer being acquitted of the blame. Rule 56, inter alia refers to an adjudication about the pay of officer for the period concerned. The circumstances of the case is to be noticed, and full amount has to be given only in the event of the officer being acquitted of the blame. Under Rule 56 it is obligatory on the part of the employer to pass orders dealing with the period of suspension. It is admitted that there was no separate departmental proceedings against the petitioner. The suspension was only for the reason that he had been arrested in connection with the crime. The ultimate findings of the learned Magistrate, as extracted earlier indicates the failure of the prosecution to prove the charge. 6. The learned Government Pleader brought to my attention a decision of the honourable Supreme Court reported in Ponnamma v. State of Kerala (1997 (1) KLT 720) which gives the circumstances under which discretion is to be exercised by the Government while dealing with a claim as envisaged under Rule 57 of the K.S.R. This effectively short circuits the contentions of the petitioner. 7. It is found that the petitioner has been reinstated and during the period of his enforced absence, subsistence allowance had been paid to him. The period of absence have been treated as leave not due and only disability of the petitioner appears to be that he is not found eligible for the pay and allowances to the full extent. A discussion of the relevant aspects has been there and discretion has not been exercised arbitrarily. As such I do not think that it is necessary to interfere in the orders as prayed for in the petition. 8. It may also be pertinent to point out that the view above taken has abundant support from the pronouncements of the Supreme Court, when identical matters had come up before the Apex Court. In Deputy Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Akhlag Ahmad (1995(2) L.L.J.669), notwithstanding the reinstatement the Supreme Court had held that backwages are not payable taking note of the conduct of the employee which had led to the disciplinary action. In Deputy Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Akhlag Ahmad (1995(2) L.L.J.669), notwithstanding the reinstatement the Supreme Court had held that backwages are not payable taking note of the conduct of the employee which had led to the disciplinary action. Further, in K.Ponnamma v. State of Kerala (1997(9) SCC 36) the Supreme Court had held that when the petitioner remained under suspension on account of her involvement in a criminal charge, even though she was acquitted the charge, respondents were well within their rights in denying backwages to her and no interference was called for. Reliance had been placed on Rules 56 and 57 of the Kerala Service Rules. The mandate of the Rule has been explained in the above said decision and it was held that the competent authority should consider the case in accordance with the rules and pass orders. The nature of the order so to be passed is held to the discretionary depending upon the facts of the case. The decision of the authority, that nothing more than suspension allowance was payable, was upheld as one in accordance with the rules. The Original Petition therefore stands dismissed.