Continued suspension after acquittal and denial of notional promotion were unjustified, with full consequential service benefits granted.

Continued suspension after affirmation of acquittal was unjustified where the departmental proceedings arose from the same facts and evidence as the criminal case; discretion under the service rules had to be exercised reasonably on relevant material, so the employee was entitled to full pay and allowances from 27 September 2005. Once the employee was exonerated in the departmental enquiry, he could not be denied consideration for notional promotion merely because earlier proceedings were pending; the denial of promotion was erroneous, and he was entitled to consequential service, pay fixation, and retiral benefits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's continued suspension during the pendency of departmental proceedings after affirmation of acquittal by the Delhi High Court was wholly unjustified and entitled him to full pay and allowances from 27 September 2005. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to be considered for notional promotion from the date his junior was promoted and to consequential benefits.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's continued suspension during the pendency of departmental proceedings after affirmation of acquittal by the Delhi High Court was wholly unjustified and entitled him to full pay and allowances from 27 September 2005.

Analysis: The suspension could not be faulted at the initial stage while the petitioner was in custody and facing a murder trial, and it was also not wholly unjustified during the pendency of the criminal appeal. However, once the criminal acquittal was affirmed and the same facts and evidence were carried into departmental proceedings, there was no necessity to continue suspension. The disciplinary authority, while acting under Rule 54, was required to exercise discretion reasonably and on relevant material. The continued suspension during the departmental enquiry was therefore unjustified, and the petitioner was entitled to full pay and allowances from the date on which the acquittal was affirmed by the Delhi High Court.

Conclusion: In favour of the petitioner. The continued suspension during the departmental proceedings was wholly unjustified and full pay and allowances were payable from 27 September 2005.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to be considered for notional promotion from the date his junior was promoted and to consequential benefits.

Analysis: Once the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental enquiry, he stood completely cleared and could not be denied the benefit of consideration for promotion merely because disciplinary and criminal proceedings had earlier been pending. The principle of notional promotion applied, and the denial of promotion in the Full Court resolution and the consequential order was erroneous. The petitioner was also entitled to have his pay fixed correctly with all consequential monetary and retiral benefits flowing from such notional consideration.

Conclusion: In favour of the petitioner. He was entitled to be considered for promotion notionally from the date his junior was promoted and to consequential service and retiral benefits.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed in part, the prolonged suspension was held unjustified from the date of affirmation of acquittal, and the petitioner was granted full consequential service benefits including promotion-related relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where criminal acquittal is affirmed and the departmental proceedings arise from the same factual foundation, continued suspension beyond that point must rest on a reasoned and proportionate exercise of discretion under the governing service rules, and a completely exonerated employee cannot be denied notional promotion and consequential benefits.

---