The Punjab and Haryana High Court Friday dismissed an appeal by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and upheld a single judge’s order directing the corporation to treat the suspension periods of a former employee, acquitted in a bribery case, as periods spent on duty for all purposes.
The division bench comprising Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Rohit Kapoor pronounced the judgment on Thursday in the case titled Food Corporation of India versus Ved Prakash Malhotra (LPA-54-2018).
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India versus Methu Meda (2022), the bench clarified: “If the acquittal is directed by the court on consideration of facts and material evidence on record with the finding of false implication or the finding that the guilt had not been proved… it be treated as honourable acquittal.”
Malhotra, who passed away during the pendency of the appeal and is now represented by his legal heirs, was an assistant manager (electrical) with FCI. The case dates back to April 2005, when Malhotra was caught in a trap by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Punjab, on allegations of demanding Rs 10,000 asa bribe for awarding a maintenance contract at Adampur in Jalandhar. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Malhotra was placed under deemed suspension from April 7, 2005, to February 24, 2006, and again from August 27, 2009, after his conviction by a trial court. Following the conviction, he was dismissed from service on December 21, 2009, without a departmental inquiry, on grounds of moral turpitude. Malhotra retired on superannuation on December 31, 2009.
However, in a criminal appeal, a single judge of the high court acquitted him on August 20, 2014. The acquittal order noted that the plea of false implication appeared probable, and no material evidence was found against him. The court observed: “The plea taken by the appellant that he had been falsely involved in this case at the instance of the complainant inspires confidence and renders the prosecution case doubtful.”
After acquittal, Malhotra sought reinstatement benefits and treatment of suspension periods as duty. The FCI, in a verbal order dated November 10, 2015, refused, stating the acquittal was by giving the benefit of doubt and not honourable, invoking Regulation 66(8)(b) of the FCI (Staff Regulations), 1971.
A single judge in September 2017 partially allowed Malhotra’s writ petition, setting aside the FCI order and directing regularisation of suspension periods from April 7, 2005, to February 24, 2006, and August 27, 2009, to December 31, 2009, as periods spent on duty.
The FCI appealed, arguing that the single judge ignored the regulations and that the acquittal was not honourable. The division bench rejected this. It quoted Regulation 66(8)(a): “if he is honourably acquitted, the full pay and allowances… the period of absence from duty will be treated as a period spent on duty.”
The bench held that the acquittal was honourable. It stated: “…the learned Single Judge has, after carefully examining the evidence and material available on record, come to a categorical conclusion that the respondent is not guilty…it is not as if the respondent has been let off on account of witnesses turning hostile… but he has been acquitted only because no material evidence was found against him.”
The court added that the mere use of ‘benefit of doubt’ is not conclusive and must be interpreted based on facts. It found that the FCI’s view was not “possible” and upheld the single judge’s relief.
