LexKRISHNAKANT RAGHUNATH BIBHAVNEKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
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: 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 c 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,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.