A benefit-of-doubt acquittal permits discretion to deny back wages under CDA Rule 22.

The petitioner, an employee of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., challenged the order dated 23 April 2021 concerning the treatment of his service following his acquittal in criminal appeals.

He sought treatment of his superannuation as 30 June 2014, back wages for 22 February 2013 to 30 June 2014, stagnation increments, and wage arrears for August 2012 to 21 February 2013.

The criminal appeals had resulted in acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt.

The respondents maintained that the period following dismissal was not spent on duty, opposed the stagnation-increment claim, but stated that the wage arrears would be paid.

The petitioner also challenged the applicability of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 (“CDA Rules”) because they had not been gazetted; the respondents relied on a Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 484 of 2020, subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the respondents could apply Rule 22 of the CDA Rules, notwithstanding that the Rules had not been gazetted, to determine the treatment of the petitioner’s absence following his acquittal.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to back wages and treatment of the period from 22 February 2013 to 30 June 2014 as spent on duty, given that his acquittal was based on benefit of doubt.

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to stagnation increments and wage arrears for the periods claimed.

Rule 22 of the CDA Rules provides that where an employee is honourably acquitted, the competent authority may grant full pay and allowances, and the absence is treated as duty; otherwise, the authority may prescribe a proportion of pay and allowances, and the absence is not treated as duty, subject to its discretion to grant admissible leave.

The Court treated the Division Bench ruling in W.A. No. 484 of 2020, affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 16150 of 2022, as binding on the applicability of the CDA Rules despite their not having been gazetted.

On judicial review, the Court held that it could not substitute its view where the authority’s finding was a possible one.

Applying Rule 22, the Court noted that the criminal appeals had resulted in acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt.

It therefore found no apparent error in the respondents’ decision to treat the period from 22 February 2013 to 30 June 2014 as not spent on duty and to deny back wages.

Although the petitioner argued that the acquittal was honourable when the judgment was read as a whole, the Court declined to substitute that interpretation for the authority’s view, which it considered a possible one.

The Court also found no infirmity in the rejection of stagnation increments, noting the justification based on the petitioner’s performance during the relevant period.

As to wage arrears, the respondents had accepted that the petitioner was eligible for payment.

It directed the respondents to pay the wage arrears for August 2012 to 21 February 2013, if not already paid, within four weeks of receiving the order, with interest at 6% per annum from 23 April 2021 until disbursement.

No costs were awarded.