Shreya Gupta
The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a Junior Engineer on February 3, 2025, who had been under suspension from 2002 to 2009 due to a criminal case in which he was later acquitted in the case of Nathu Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Although his service was restored, he was denied arrears for the suspension period on the ground that his acquittal was based on the “benefit of doubt.” Justice Arun Monga criticized the State’s stance, calling it “insipid” and asserting that an acquittal occurs only when no incriminating evidence is found against the accused. Justice Arun Monga during the hearing held that relying on the “benefit of doubt” to deny arrears was unjust, unfair, and arbitrary, as it contradicted the principle of restoring the petitioner to his rightful position before the suspension.
The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, was suspended under the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1958 on November 7, 2002, in a matter related to a criminal case mentioned the case briefly. After being acquitted in 2009 and having the State’s appeal against the acquittal rejected in 2011, he was reinstated, but his salary for the suspension period was withheld. The Court ruled that, once a competent Court thoroughly examined the evidence and found it insufficient to establish criminal culpability, the mere fact that the acquittal was based on “benefit of doubt” did not mean that any evidence against the petitioner existed. The Court emphasized that an acquittal signifies the absence of sufficient evidence, and since the reason for the suspension was no longer valid, the petitioner should have been granted his financial dues.
The Judgment further stressed that a “benefit of doubt” acquittal should not be used as an excuse to deprive an employee of legitimate financial entitlements. It stated that equity demanded full compensation for the period of unjust suspension, considering the professional hardship, humiliation, and ignominy suffered by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and directed the State to pay the petitioner’s dues for the suspension period, along with interest, as per the service rules.
Case Name: Nathu Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10394/2011
Bench: Justice Arun Monga