Acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically entitle a suspended employee to full back wages.

The Petitioner, a Medical Officer with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), was arrested by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on November 20, 1986, for allegedly accepting a bribe

He was placed under suspension effective November 29, 1986

Although a criminal trial (Special Case No. 49 of 1987) followed, the Petitioner was acquitted of all charges on September 29, 1989

He was reinstated on May 10, 1990

While the MCGM initially sanctioned a departmental enquiry, it was not pursued due to a pending criminal appeal filed by the ACB, which was eventually dismissed by the High Court in 2006

In 2000, the Petitioner faced a second ACB trap and was again suspended, eventually undergoing compulsory retirement in 2005

Regarding the first suspension period (1986–1990), the Municipal Commissioner decided in 2010 to regularize the 1,257 days by treating them as earned leave, half-pay leave, and leave without pay, rather than "on duty"

The Petitioner challenged this decision, seeking full pay and allowances

1. Whether the period of suspension from November 29, 1986, to May 9, 1990, must be treated as "on duty" for the purpose of granting full pay and allowances following a criminal acquittal

2. Whether an acquittal in a criminal trial automatically entitles a reinstated employee to full back wages and treatment of the suspension period as duty under the relevant service regulations

The court primarily applied Regulation 75 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (Service) Regulations, 1989, which grants the Competent Authority discretion to determine the quantum of pay and how suspension periods should be treated upon reinstatement

It relied on the precedent set in Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1997), which established that consequential benefits like back wages are not a matter of course upon acquittal, especially if the suspension was based on valid considerations of discipline and integrity

The court also applied the principle of "no work no pay" as discussed in Mohan Moreshwar Agashe v. MSEDCL (2017), noting that a public servant cannot demand full wages as a right for periods where no service was rendered due to criminal entanglements

The court reasoned that under Regulation 75, full pay and treatment of suspension as "duty" are only mandatory if the authority finds the suspension "wholly unjustified"

In this case, the suspension was triggered by an ACB arrest and prosecution, not by the employer's (MCGM) internal malice; thus, the employer should not bear the financial burden of the employee's private criminal embroilment

The court distinguished the recent Supreme Court ruling in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2024), clarifying that it does not mandate automatic back wages in every acquittal case but depends on whether the charge was "disproved" or merely "not proved"

The court observed that the Petitioner had already received 50% to 75% subsistence allowance during the period

Given the Petitioner’s repeated involvement in bribery cases, the Commissioner’s decision to convert the suspension into various kinds of leave—thereby preserving it as qualifying service for pension while denying full salary—was a valid exercise of administrative discretion

It held that acquittal does not automatically entitle an employee to full back wages for a suspension period caused by a criminal case not initiated by the employer

The treatment of the suspension period as various forms of leave was deemed appropriate under the facts and circumstances

No order as to costs was made