1 2025:CGHC:30803 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 755 of 2020 1 - Rameshwar Tripathi Son Of Late Sitaram Tripathi Aged About 58 Years Senior Manager (Mining), (NIES No. 90145939e-6), Mines Rescue Centre, Chirmiri, District Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Secl, Disciplinary Authority, Having Its Office At Seepat Road, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director (Personnel) Secl, Seepat Road, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The General Manager, (Executive Establishment) Secl, Seepat Road District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The General Manager Chirmiri Area, Having Its Office At West Chirmiri, Po West Chirmiri, District Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title, as taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. (Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 07/07/2025 1. With the consent of both the parties, heard the matter finally. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- “A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records concerning the case of the petitioner from the 2 respondent authorities. B. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing/setting aside the order dated 12.11.2018 (Annexure-P/6) issued by the respondent No.1. C. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner outstanding dues as mentioned in paragraph 8.12 with interest @ 12%. D. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to adequately and suitably correct-modify the service record of the petitioner showing that the petitioner has spent period of suspension from 19.6.2017 to 11.2.2018 on duty and that he has been paid all the dues admissible for the said period. E. Cost of the petition.” 3. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was posted as Senior Manager (Mining) at the Mines Rescue Centre, SECL Chirmiri, District Koriya. The victim/prosecutrix, who belongs to Schedule Caste category, lodged an FIR against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 354, 354-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 3 (1-11) W (1) /3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya. In pursuance of that FIR, the petitioner was arrested on 19.06.2017 and kept in custody for more than 48 hours. Consequently, he was placed under suspension vide Annexure-P/2 dated 08.08.2017. After filing of the charge-sheet, said case was registered before the Special Judge {SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocity)}, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG) as Special Criminal Case No.29/2017. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted of all charges vide judgment dated 28.02.2018 (Annexure-P/9). Thereafter, 3 he submitted representations {Annexures-P/10 to P/13} seeking payment of the balance amount for the suspension period and requesting that the suspension period be treated as period spent on duty. However, the same was rejected by the respondents -SECL vide Annexure-P/6 dated 10/12th November, 2018, which gave rise to filing of instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that vide judgment dated 28.02.2018, the learned Special Court has cleanly acquitted the petitioner of all the charges, as the victim/prosecutrix herself turned hostile and the prosecution utterly failed to prove charges against him. He would further submit that since the petitioner was cleanly acquitted by the Special Court, therefore, his representations for treating his suspension period on duty and payment of balance amount for the period of suspension ought to have been allowed by the respondents -SECL, but the same has been rejected, which is against the law. Hence, he prayed that reliefs sought for by the petitioner may be granted to him. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the decision of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Shankar Lal Soni vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and Others (WPS No.994 of 2010), as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Narain vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 809. 5. The Respondents -SECL has filed its reply. Learned counsel for the respondents, referring to its reply, would submit that the FIR was not lodged by SECL; rather, it was lodged by an independent person, who belongs to SC category, for the offence of rape and other heinous offences. He would further submit that, If FIR would have been lodged by SECL and, in such situation, petitioner have been acquitted, then, 4 the suspension period of the petitioner would have been treated as a duty period and the monetary benefits would have been payable. However, the fact is not like that in instant case. Further, the acquittal in the present matter was not a ‘clean acquittal’, as perusal of the judgment (Annexure-P/9) dated 28.02.2018 passed by the Special Judge, shows that material witnesses, including the doctor who examined the victim/prosecutrix, the Investigating Officer and other witnesses, were not examined. Out of 18 listed witnesses, only 5 witnesses were examined. Additionally, the judgment also does not mention the consideration of the FSL report. Consequently, the petitioner has been acquitted on the basis of incomplete trial, as such, it cannot be said that it is a case of ‘clear cut’ or ‘unblemished acquittal’. Hence, the petition is liable to be rejected. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance upon the case of Union of India and Others vs. Methu Meda reported in (2022) 1 SCC 1. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Undisputedly, vide judgment dated 28.02.2018 (Annexure-P/9), the petitioner has been acquitted of Criminal Case No. 29/2017 (Crime No.34/2017) by the Special Judge from all the charges levelled against him. As per para 6 of the judgment of the Special Court, 18 witnesses were listed by the prosecution for examination, out of which, only five were examined. Material witnesses, including the doctor who examined victim/prosecutrix, the Investigating Officer and other witnesses have not been examined. As per the judgment, vaginal slide of victim was also prepared, but body part of judgment does not show its consideration in the judgment. In heinous offence of rape, that too, of a 5 lady belongs to SC category, examining only five witnesses shows that the petitioner has been acquitted on the basis of incomplete trial. 8. In the case of Shankar Lal Soni (supra), this Court has held that, the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ would have no application, as sub-rule (2) of Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules is mandatory and the Government servant is entitled for full pay allowances on ‘full exoneration’ from criminal case. But in instant case, having considered the judgment of the Special Court, it cannot be said that petitioner has been fully exonerated or his acquittal is unblemished as he has been acquitted after incomplete trial because material witnesses have not been examined. In view of that peculiar facts of the instant case, case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not helpful to him in instant case. 9. On due consideration, I do not find any merits in the instant petition, hence the same is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.07.09 17:03:26 +0530