IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 20882 of 2007(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.K.NARAYANAN, PULIKKAKUNNIL HOUSE, KEYAPARAMBA P.O. ULIKKAL 670705, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.P.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.20882/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SVC(1) 54492/97(1) DT 31.1.1998 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SVC(2)/23392/92(V) DT 17.7.2003. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.19/2000 IN CRIME NO.3/1997 OF THE HON'BLE SPECIAL JUDGE, KOZHIKODE ON 30/7/2005. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPODNENT TO THE PETITIONER NO.SGI (2)/55477/05 DT 26.9.2006. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/10/2006 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION 28/3/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER CPOG 12/2001 DT 21.4.2001 OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CASHEW PROGENY ORCHARD, GALIMUKHA, P.O.KUNTAR ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SVC(5)/54492/97 DT 30.1.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. vi/ //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.20882 OF 2007 (J) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was an Agricultural Assistant. In this writ petition, his grievance is regarding the period he was kept under suspension pursuant to Ext.P1 order. 2. By Ext.P1 order petitioner was placed under suspension from 30.1.1998 onwards and while so, on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.5.2003. On the same allegations, case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with the provisions of Indian Penal Code was charge sheeted against the petitioner before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Ernakulam in C.C. No.19/2000. Subsequent to his retirement, by Ext.P3 judgment rendered on 30th July, 2000 he was acquitted. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P8 order dated 30.1.2008 directing to treat the period of suspension with effect from 31.1.1998 to 31.5.2003 as period spent out of duty as per Rule 56B of Part-I KSR to limit the pay and allowances and to treat the suspension period for counting for the WPC.No.20882 /07 :2 : limited purpose of pension under Rule 28 of Part-III KSR. 3. In this writ petition the grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P8. His contention is that having regard to the fact that he has been acquitted by the criminal court he is entitled to have his suspension period regularized and benefits released. He also relies on the judgments of this court in Pathrose.T V. Kerala Water Authority and Another(ILR 2008(3) Kerala 429), Santhosh Kumar. S V. State of Kerala & Ors.(2007(3)ILR 101) and Joseph K V. Director of Treasuries & Ors. (1996(2)ILR 633). 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that the order has been passed in view of the provisions contained in Rule 56B of Part- I KSR and in the light of the Circular No.65/94/Fin. dated 26th November, 1995. Learned Government Pleader also invited my attention to the judgment in Mohammed Easa Sahib V. D.I.G of Police(1990(2)KLT 462). 5. A reading of Ext.P3, the judgment rendered by the criminal court shows that, taking into account the fact that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, the accused was acquitted under Section 248 WPC.No.20882 /07 :3 : (1) of Cr.P.C granting the benefit of doubt. Therefore this acquittal was by extending the benefit of doubt and was not an acquittal free of blame. The expression `acquitted of blame' has been considered by this court in Mohammed Easa Sahib V. D.I.G of Police(1990(2) KLT 462). It was held that, it means something more than a mere acquittal and an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt is not acquitted of blame. In such case Rule 56B(3) part I KSR provides that where the Authority Competent to order reinstatement of the employee is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the officer shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8) be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended. Paragraph 3 of the Circular No.65/94 relied on by the Government Pleader also reiterates this position. If that be so, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt, I cannot hold that the view taken by the authorities in Ext.P8 is illegal. 6. In so far as the judgments relied on by the counsel for the petitioner are concerned, a reading of the facts of those judgments itself shows that in those cases the employee concerned was WPC.No.20882 /07 :4 : acquitted free of all blames unlike in this case. If so the judgments relied on can have no application to the facts of the case. In the result I cannot find fault in Ext.P8 warranting interference. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that substance allowance during the period of suspension and pension has not been released. If he has such a grievance, it is directed that it will be open to to the petitioner to move the 2nd respondent in this behalf, in which event the 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders without any further delay, redressing the grievance in this behalf. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/