S SANTHOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as Seed Analyst under the respondents. He was arrested by the police on 22-10-2001 and produced before the competent criminal court on 23-10-2001. THE learned Magistrate remanded him to judicial custody till 6-11-2001. THEreafter, on filing application for bail, he was released on bail. THE fact that he was arrested and produced by the police before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, karunagappally and that he was remanded to Sub Jail, Kollam was reported by the sub Inspector of Police to the Director of Agriculture. Taking note of the above fact, the petitioner was placed under suspension as per order dated 20-12-2001 (Ext. P- 1 ). Subsequently he was reinstated in service as per order dated 28-4-2003 without prejudice to the proceedings before the criminal court. Subsequently, as per judgment dated 8-1-2003 (Ext. P-2) the petitioner was acquitted of the offence. THE period of suspension of the petitioner was regularised as per Ext. P-5 order passed by the Government on 12-6-2006. THE request of the petitioner to regularise the period as duty for all purposes has been rejected stating that the acquittal of the petitioner cannot be treated as `honourable acquittal'. THE petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext. P-5 order.

(2.) THE first respondent has filed a counter-affidavit justifying the stand taken in Ext. P-5.

(3.) THE impugned or & uses the expression honourable acquittal which is not the expression used by the rule making authority in Rule 57 of Part I K. S. R THE enquiry must be whether the finding of the criminal court amounts to mere acquittal as contemplated by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or is tantamount to exonerating the petitioner the blame as contemplated in Rule 57 of Part I K. S. R. Applying the above test to the facts of this case, it is evident that the finding entered by the criminal court which led to the order of acquittal of the petitioner of the offences as per Ext. P-4 judgment, will come within the ambit of the expression `acquitted of blame' also. Discussing the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate has stated in paragraph 9 as follows: "absolutely there is no evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offences. Hence I find that the prosecution has not succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence the point is found against the prosecution. "