Acquittal on benefit of doubt does not entitle employees to full wages for suspension.

A criminal case was registered against the appellant, D. Selvaraj, during his employment with Indian Bank.

The criminal proceedings concluded in his acquittal on the benefit of doubt.

He was suspended from service from 01.07.2006 to 30.04.2012 and subsequently retired on attaining the age of superannuation.

He claimed settlement of full salary and allowances for the suspension period.

The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition, holding that the applicable Memorandum of Settlement and Vigilance Manual did not entitle him to full wages or treatment of the suspension period as duty.

The appellant challenged that order in the present writ appeal.

Whether an employee of Indian Bank acquitted in a criminal case on the benefit of doubt is entitled to have the period of suspension treated as duty with full salary and allowances.

Whether the applicable provisions of Clause 24.3 of the Vigilance Manual and Clause 3(c) of the Memorandum of Settlement governed the appellant’s entitlement notwithstanding his acquittal.

Whether the precedents relied upon by the appellant required payment of full wages despite the applicable institutional rules.

The Court applied Clause 24.3 of the Indian Bank Vigilance Manual, under which, where an employee is acquitted in a criminal case on the benefit of doubt, the suspension period continues to be treated as a period of suspension and the employee is not entitled to pay and allowances for that period.

The Court also applied Clause 3(c) of the Memorandum of Settlement, which similarly regulates the treatment of the suspension period and does not confer an automatic entitlement to full wages in such circumstances.

The decisions in Mohan Lal, Constable, Delhi Police, Delhi v. Union of India, ILR (1981) II Delhi 1037, and Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685, relied upon by the appellant, were held inapplicable because the present case was governed by the specific Vigilance Manual and Memorandum of Settlement.

The Court accepted that the appellant had been acquitted, but noted that the acquittal was expressly on the benefit of doubt, rather than an unequivocal exoneration on merits.

Since the appellant’s service conditions were governed by the Indian Bank’s Vigilance Manual and Memorandum of Settlement, the Court treated those provisions as controlling the financial consequences of the suspension.

Clause 24.3 of the Vigilance Manual and Clause 3(c) of the Memorandum of Settlement did not permit the suspension period to be treated as duty with full wages in a case of acquittal on benefit of doubt.

The Court therefore rejected the appellant’s attempt to rely on general principles and distinguished the authorities cited by him as cases not dealing with the specific contractual and regulatory provisions applicable to Indian Bank employees.

It consequently found no error in the Single Judge’s decision.

The writ appeal was dismissed, the order dated 13.06.2025 in W.P. No. 8809 of 2024 was affirmed, there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.