High Court Directs Setting Aside Removal And Payment Of Terminal Benefits After Acquittal Found To Be on Ground of No Evidence

A bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu heard a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai’s dismissal of an original application that had sought quashment of an order removing a government servant from service and payment of pensionary and retirement benefits calculated on the applicable pay scale with retrospective effect.

The Court held that the acquittal in the criminal appeal operated in favour of the petitioner because the prosecution had failed to prove the charge and witnesses were disbelieved, and it set aside the Tribunal’s finding that the acquittal was not an honourable acquittal. The High Court allowed the writ and directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders setting aside the order of removal and to effect payment of all terminal benefits. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Even otherwise, it would be highly improper to examine whether the Judgment of the acquittal is a honourable acquittal or not. The acquittal was based on no evidence produced by the prosecution. It is thus clear that it can never be termed as extension of a benefit or a graze shown to the petitioner. He had been acquitted because the witnesses marshalled by the prosecution were disbelieved by the Court and the crux of the charge had not been proved by the prosecution.” The writ petition stood allowed and no costs were awarded.

Background

The petitioner joined the Puducherry Transport Department in 1984 as an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, was promoted to Assistant Engineer in 2001 and officiated as Regional Transport Officer, Karaikkal. A CBI FIR accused him of demanding and accepting a bribe and he was placed under suspension on 12.07.2010, which was revoked on 22.08.2011. Final report was filed and he was convicted by the Additional Sessions Court on 06.03.2012. He filed Criminal Appeal No.185 of 2012 before the Madras High Court, which allowed the appeal on 18.01.2018 and acquitted him of all charges.

Notwithstanding the pending appeal, the petitioner was removed from service on the date of superannuation (30.09.2013) under Rule 19(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, which permits disciplinary action where conviction on a criminal charge has occurred. After the acquittal, the petitioner sought revocation of the removal and payment of retirement benefits; the respondents refused and the petitioner approached the CAT, which dismissed his original application on the ground that the acquittal was not a “honourable acquittal.” The petitioner challenged that dismissal by way of writ petition under Article 226.

The High Court reviewed the criminal appeal judgment and observed that the acquittal rested on the prosecution’s failure to prove demand and acceptance of bribe, serious doubts about the presence and credibility of key witnesses, and a plausible explanation for the recovery of currency notes. The Court noted the criminal appeal judgment’s finding that: “In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused with acceptable evidence... In such circumstances, grave doubt arises about the veracity the case and the subsequent events as projected by the prosecution... Hence, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt and the appeal is to be entertained.” Applying that analysis, the High Court found it was “highly improper” to treat the acquittal as anything other than a result of failure of prosecution evidence and therefore set aside the Tribunal’s conclusion.

The High Court directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders setting aside the order of removal from service and to effect payment of all terminal benefits and other benefits payable to the petitioner on retirement. No costs were imposed.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P.No. 26950 of 2025
Case Title: V. Vijayaraghavan v. Government of Puducherry and others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. B.A. Sujay Prasanna
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. Syed Mustafa, Special Government Pleader, Puducherry

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 87