WP/22042/2022 of T.L.Vedachalam (Emp. No. 22247) Vs The chairman-cum Managing Director on 23 September 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 23.04.2021.

2. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner was subsequently acquitted by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 495 and 496 of 2012 by order dated 27.03.2018, the termination period between 22.02.2013 to 30.06.2014 has to be treated as spent on duty and entitled to have a full salary. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from the above claim, he is also entitled for a stagnation increments and wage arrears between August 2012 and 21.02.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that by virtue of the impugned order dated 23.04.2021, though the respondent has construed that the mode of exit of the petitioner should be treated as superannuation as on 30.06.2014, the denial of the above claim is contrary to the law. The learned counsel further contended that the reliance made by the respondent based upon the CDA Rules cannot be applicable to deny the monetary claim as the dismissal of the petitioner was only based upon the conviction given by the criminal court. Therefore, the moment the petitioner is acquitted, it must be construed as acquittal of the court. It cannot be distinguished that it is based upon benefit of doubt or an honourable acquittal. The learned counsel further submitted that for such a classification, the reliance made by the respondent based upon the CDA Rules was heavily condemned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka, CBI, ACB, Bangalore Vs K.T.Uthappa and another in SLP(Crl.)Nos.8630- 8631 of 2012.

3. The said contention was totally objected by learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and submitted that initially the petitioner was convicted by CBI Court against which the petitioner preferred an appeal. This Court has acquitted him however, the acquittal was not honourable one. On the other hand, by giving benefit of doubt, he was acquitted. After the acquittal order, though the petitioner’s exit was treated as a superannuation by following Clause 22 of CDA Rules, since the acquittal of the petitioner was not honourable, by exercising the discretion conferred with the management, they treated the dismissal period as a ‘period not spent on duty’ on the principle of “No Work No Pay”. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that in respect of the stagnation increment, since for the relevant period namely financial year 2009- 2010, the petitioner's performance was average. Therefore, he is otherwise not entitled to have a stagnation increment. However, he submitted that in respect of wage arrears for a period between August 2012 to 21.02.2013, even according to the respondents, the petitioner is eligible for such arrears and the amount would be released within a short span of time. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

5. While exercising the power under judicial review, this Court can mildly and subtly review the order passed by the authorities concerned. In the case on hand, the submissions relied by the respondents is based upon the CDA rules. Now, the prime point to be considered is whether the CDA rules is applicable or not. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 was not even gazetted at any point of time, that cannot be made applicable to the employee of the said Insurance Company and also submitted that the said judgment was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Crl.)Nos.8630-8631 of 2012. However, it is made clear that the above Apex Court judgment is arising out of the order passed by the Karnataka High Court. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in WP.No.29645 of 2011 dated 17.02.2020 in the case of K.Rajendra Kumar Vs The Chairman cum Managing Director, United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai-14.

6. Contrarily, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner was subsequently reversed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.484 of 2020 dated 01.07.2022, in which the Division

Bench in Paragraph.No.12 has observed as follows:- “ 12. The question therefore is, whether not gazetting the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 as applicable to the employees / officers of the United India Insurance Company Limited which is even approved by the Board of the Company can be said to be lack of jurisdiction by the Disciplinary Authority to initiate proceedings against its employees. According to us, such an absolute conclusion could not have been arrived at in absence of any pleading by either of the side and further that, law can not contemplate any vacuum like situation for any organization, which has offices spread over entire country. If the finding of learned Single Judge is allowed to stand, it would lead to absolute chaotic situation for the appellant Company, not only qua one officer (writ petitioner in this case) or qua the Southern Region of the country but for the country on the whole. Only passing reference of one statement recorded by the Supreme Court in some different matter, in different context, is erroneously understood by the writ court as mandate by the Supreme Court. The said error is apparent on face of record, which according to us, needs to be corrected in exercise of powers under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. While exercising that power, we set aside the said conclusion recorded by learned Single Judge. We also note that, at the time of admission of this appeal itself, the said finding was already stayed by the Division Bench at the relevant time”

The finding was subsequently confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.16150 of 2022 dated 17.10.2022.

7. In view of the above confirmation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is amply clear that the findings recorded by the Division Bench that the CDA rule is applicable notwithstanding the fact it is not gazetted, is binding upon the Court. When this Court has arrived at a conclusion that the CDA rule is binding upon the parties, then we must look at whether the impugned order is in consonance with the CDA rules. According to Rule 22, whenever the acquittal is not honourable and based upon the benefit of doubt, then there was discretion vests upon the authorities concerned to treat the termination period. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract Rule 22 of CDA Rules:- “22. Treatment of the period of suspension:- When the suspension of an employee is held to be unjustified or not wholly justified, or when an employee who has been dismissed, removed or suspended is reinstated, the Competent Authority, whose decision shall be final, may grant to him for the period of his absence from duty:

(a) If he is honorably acquitted, the full pay and allowances which he would have been entitled to if he had not been dismissed, removed or suspended, less the subsistence allowance; (b) If otherwise, such proportion of pay and allowances as the Competent Authority may prescribe.

In a case falling under clause (a), the period of absence from duty will be treated as period spent on duty. In a case falling under clause (b), the period of absence shall not be treated as period spent on duty, but the Competent Authority may at its discretion, grant leave for the period to the extent admissible to the employee under the rules. Any period of absence which has not been treated as period spent on duty or on leave shall not count as service for any purpose under these rules but will not constitute break in service. No order passed under this rule shall have the effect of compelling any employee to refund the subsistence allowance payable under rule 21”

8. In view of the above findings, while looking into the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeals filed by the petitioner, in both the criminal appeal, the petitioner was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt. Therefore, while looking into the impugned order, this Court does not find any apparent error. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on reading of the judgment given by this court, though there is a reference of the word benefit of doubt, such word cannot be treated as an incantation, so as to vitiate the findings rendered by this Court. On reading of the entire findings harmoniously, it clearly discloses that the acquittal is honourable one. Though such submissions cannot be outrightly rejected, when the findings recorded by the authorities is also a possible finding, substituting the finding at the time of exercising power of judicial review, since there is also an alternative view, is not permissible. Therefore, this Court absolutely does not find any infirmity in the impugned order in respect of rejection of the back wages between 22.02.2013 to 30.06.2014.

9. Even in respect of stagnation increment, this Court does not find any infirmity as there are justification for such rejection. Coming to the wage arrears, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents had already submitted before this Court that they would settle the wage arrears within a reasonable time.

10. In such view of the above factual position and discussions, this Court is of the firm view that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to settle the wage arrears between the period August 2012 and 21.02.2013 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if not released so far, along with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from 23.04.2021 till the date of disbursal of the amount.

11. With the above directions, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 23-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NR

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NR WP No. 22042 of 2022 23-09-2026