Acquitted employee entitled to full pay for suspension: CAT

Acquitted employee entitled to full pay for suspension: CAT
After an acquittal, an employee is entitled to full pay and allowances from his employer and the grounds of acquittal have no bearing on the matter, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has ruled. 
Aggrieved by the decision of telecom department to withhold his full pay and allowances on the plea that his acquittal was “on the benefit of doubt”, Mohinder Singh (61), a resident of Abohar, had moved the CAT seeking directions to treat his period of suspension of four years as “period spent on duty” thus entitling him to full pay and allowances.
Singh, before superannuation from BSNL on January 31, 2010 was employed in telephone exchange, Abohar, and had been suspended from December 12, 2002 to March 2, 2006 owing to pending graft case against him for allegedly demanding bribe for installing a telephone connection. He was acquitted in November 2005 as the prosecution failed to prove the allegations against him.

Following acquittal, his suspension was revoked and Singh joined duty.
In this case, the CAT has ordered the telecom department to grant full pay and allowance to Singh with 9% interest.
However, following the order of disciplinary authority of the department on December 8, 2011, Mohinder’s period of suspension was treated as period “not spent on duty” because his acquittal was based on “benefit of doubt” and “not on merits”.
The appellant authority dismissed Singh’s appeal following which he moved the tribunal.
Singh had sought quashing of the order and treating suspension as a period spent on duty and that he be granted full pay and allowances terming the order of the department as “misplaced”.
He had challenged the order of general manager telecom Punjab circle Ferozepure, chief general manager telecom and BSNL depriving him of full pay and allowances.

Agreeing with the contentions of Mohinder’s counsel Vikas Chatrath, the tribunal accepted, “An acquittal whether on benefit of doubt or otherwise should lead to the same consequences. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to full pay and allowances for period of suspension ordered only because of the criminal case.”

News by Hindustan Times

Stay connected with us via Facebook, Google+ or Email Subscription.

Subscribe to Central Government Employee News & Tools by Email [Click Here]
Follow us: Twitter [click here] | Facebook [click here] Google+ [click here]


  • dh_raju Raju

    20 Jan

    to tapas
    208 of 387

    regarding Promotion from 1996
    dh_raju raju
    to aks
    Dear sir,

    I should get promotion from 1996 instead of 1999. in my case I got injustice promotion kindly see my attached file herewith. I want to send this letter to grievance redresses cell officially before that please look once this letter
    with regards.

    Grievance redresses cell


    University Campus

    Khandwa road


    M P


    D H RAJU





    Through Center Director

    Sub; – Regarding promotion due from 1996

    Respected Sir/Madam,

    With due respect I would like to inform you that I D.Hanumantharaju working in KOLKATA CENTER from 25th may 1992, My designation at present is technician E. I want to appeal that I got injustice promotion in my carrier as follows and grant me promotion from 1996.

    a) That by a telegram dt 24/4/1996 I was directed to appear for promotion interview and trade test on 30/4/1996 (very short period only 4 days left for)

    b) That I was suffering from typhoid 19/4/1996 for which I was under the treatment of the doctor who advice me to be on absolute bed rest for two months 19/4/1996

    c) My father was also suffering from serious illness since before I fell ill.

    d) I applied for earned leave from 18/3/1996 to 18/4/1996 and also applied for medical leave from 19/4/1996to 19/6/1996 due to my serious illness.

    e) I along with my leave application on medical ground submitted necessary medical certificate.

    f) My earn leave from 18/3/1996 to 18/3/1996 and medical leave 19/4/1996 to 19/6/1996 were considered to be genuine an accordingly the authority competent to grant leave sanction my leave for above said period.

    g) In response to the telegram dt 24/04/1996 directing me to appear promotion interview and trade test I through proper channel on 30/4/1996 through fax express my inability to attend the interview.

    h) I was granted promotion with effect from 1/7/1999,while the persons who belongs to my batch and the persons who are junior to me where granted promotion with effect from 1996

    i) My failure to appear for promotion interview and trade test on 30/4/1996 was beyond my control and there were no intentional lapses on my part to appear before interview on 30/4/1996. My failure to participate was found to be justified in the face of the fact that my leave on medical ground with effect from 19/4/1996 to 19/6/1996 being found to be justify for approved from the sanctioning authority.

    j) My promotion to higher post was considered by the authority considering my merit and eligibility.

    k) The denial of promotion with effect from the date, which was due to me with effect from 1996, for which I am eligible, is denial of my personal right.

    l) The denial, which has got both civil and evil consequences in my service carrier.

    m) In view of the above I would request you to consider my case and to give me promotion with effect from 1996 instead of 1999.

    Thanking you yours faithfully

    (D H RAJU)