### Acquittal for failed proof of bribery necessitates restoration of retirement benefits despite removal from service.

The petitioner, a Regional Transport Officer in Puducherry, was charged by the CBI under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe.

Following a conviction by the Trial Court on 06.03.2012, the petitioner was removed from service on 30.09.2013, the date of his superannuation, under Rule 19(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

On 18.01.2018, the High Court allowed the petitioner’s criminal appeal (Crl.A.No. 185 of 2012), acquitting him of all charges.

When the petitioner sought revocation of his removal and grant of pensionary benefits, the respondents refused, and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) subsequently dismissed his application on 12.03.2025, holding that his acquittal was not "honourable".

1. Whether a judgment of acquittal can be classified as "honourable" or otherwise for the purpose of reinstating service benefits.

2. Whether the petitioner, having been acquitted by the High Court, is entitled to the withdrawal of the punishment of removal and the receipt of terminal benefits.

The court applied Rule 19(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, which allows a disciplinary authority to impose a penalty based on conduct leading to a criminal conviction without a standard inquiry.

It further applied the principle that a criminal judgment must be read as a whole to determine if the prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt due to a lack of credible evidence.

The court scrutinized the distinction between "honourable acquittal" and acquittal on "benefit of doubt," emphasizing that an acquittal based on a total lack of credible evidence regarding the core of the charge cannot be treated as a mere "grace" shown to the accused.

The Court examined the acquittal judgment in Crl.A.No. 185 of 2012, noting it categorically found the prosecution failed to prove the demand or acceptance of a bribe.

The evidence of the recovery of tainted notes was effectively rebutted by a "plausible explanation" that the money was a penalty amount for a seized vehicle, and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses was found to be "highly doubtful".

The Court reasoned that since the "very genesis of the prosecution case had failed" due to a lack of credible evidence, it was "highly improper" for the Tribunal to label the acquittal as something less than "honourable".

The Court held that an acquittal based on the failure of the prosecution to prove the crux of the charge entitles the employee to the revocation of penalties imposed solely due to the initial conviction.

The Court held that the petitioner’s acquittal was definitive and not merely a "benefit of doubt" in a restrictive sense that would bar service benefits.

The respondents were directed to pass orders setting aside the removal from service and to pay all pensionary and terminal benefits to the petitioner effective from his date of superannuation.