When Mr Jumani, a young man from Mumba, started working for Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in 1977 as a Junior Medical Officer, he had no clue that in his career spanning over 28 years, he would face multiple incidents ranging from entrapment by Anti Corruption Bureau to getting suspended for alleged bribery to a lengthy legal battle for his full back wages.
Although he began his career in 1977, it wasn’t until January 1, 1980, that he got promoted to the post of Medical Officer of Health and was assigned to various Wards. In 1985, he was appointed as Medical Officer of Health in ‘S’ Ward.
However, on November 20, 1986, he was arrested by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) for allegedly demanding and accepting Rs 2,000 as a bribe. He was immediately detained in custody and nine days later, on November 29, 1986, he was suspended.
On October 9, 1987 a special case (no. 49 of 1987) was opened agains him, and a chargesheet was filed. They even searched his home and bank lockers. The officers claimed that he had disproportionate assets worth Rs.7.7 lakh based on his known sources of income. Because of this, the ACB filed another case against him under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
However, after further investigations, the ACB decided not to file a chargesheet regarding the possession of disproportionate assets. So, with that case dropped, he was left to face trial in Special case No.49 of 1987 concerning the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
In September 1989, the court ruled in his favour and acquitted him of all the charges framed against him. After his acquittal in Special Case No.49 of 1987, he was reinstated in service with effect from May 10, 1990 after revoking the suspension.
However, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) proposed to conduct a departmental enquiry against him and the Municipal Commissioner sanctioned this enquiry on April 2, 1991.
Meantime, the Anti-Corruption Bureau filed an appeal (Criminal Appeal No.89 of 1990) before Bombay High Court challenging his acquittal order. Since the appeal was filed by ACB, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai did not issue any chargesheet for conducting departmental enquiry against him.
On November 6, 2006, Bombay High Court dismissed the bureau’s appeal.
Meanwhile, he was once again trapped by ACB on December 26, 2000, facing accusations of demanding and accepting illegal gratification (bribe) and was again placed under suspension with effect from January 3, 2001.
Ultimately on November 4, 2005, he was compulsorily retired from municipal service upon attaining the age of 55 years under Rule 14B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (Pension) Rules [MMC (Pension) Rules].
However, during the period under suspension between November 29, 1986 and May 9, 1990, his salary wasn’t counted as full duty. Instead this period was partly treated as earned leave, half pay leave and leave without pay as the Municipal Corporation refused to treat the suspension period as full duty.
So, Jumanu wrote many letters, sent representations and made requests about how his suspension period was treated but to no avail.
Given the context, he appealed to court seeking direction for treatment of suspension period from 29 November 1986 to 9 May 1990 as duty and for payment of pay and allowances for this period.
On March 25, 2026, he lost the case in Bombay High Court as the court held that even after being acquitted of a workplace bribery charge, an employee isn’t automatically entitled to full back wages especially if the criminal case arose from their own conduct.
Why the employee lost the case?
Advocate Mayank Parashar, Legal Associate at Clasis Law, said to ET Wealth Online: The employee lost because the Bombay High Court distinguished between acquittal in a criminal proceeding and entitlement to service benefits. The Bombay High Court clarified that merely being acquitted does not automatically wipe out the consequences of suspension, especially where the suspension was based on serious allegations such as bribery.
According to Parashar, the key reasoning was that the suspension was not arbitrary or due to any fault of the employer, but was a legitimate administrative action taken in light of a criminal prosecution. Therefore, even though the employee was later acquitted, the employer retained the discretion to decide how the suspension period should be treated whether as duty, leave, or otherwise and was not obligated to grant full back wages.
Accordingly, the competent authority had already exercised its discretion under the applicable service regulations and decided to treat the suspension period partly as earned leave, partly as half-pay leave, and partly as leave without pay, while also noting that the employee had received subsistence allowance during the suspension.
Parashar says that the Bombay High Court reaffirmed the principle that service law consequences operate independently of criminal proceedings, and acquittal does not ipso facto entitle an employee to full salary for the suspension period, particularly in the absence of a finding that the suspension was unjustified or mala fide.
Parashar says: “In simple words just because an employee is found not guilty later does not mean he must be paid full salary for the time he was under suspension, especially if the employer acted fairly at the time.”
Bombay High Court order
The Bombay High Court gave its judgement (case no: 2026:BHC-OS:7533-DB) on March 25, 2026.
The Bombay High Court examined Regulation 75 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (Service) Regulations, 1989 [MMC (Service) Regulations, which mandates that upon reinstatement, the competent authority must decide both the pay and allowances payable for the suspension period and whether such period should be treated as duty.
The high court noted that full pay is payable only where the authority concludes that the suspension was wholly unjustified, whereas in other cases, partial pay or conversion of the period into leave is permissible, as reported by LiveLaw.
On this ground, the Bombay High Court held that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically render the suspension unjustified.
The Bombay High Court said that upon acquittal of a suspended employee, though reinstatement is guaranteed, payment of full salary cannot be an automatic consequence. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case… in cases where the arrest and detention results in suspension in bribery cases, the employer cannot be saddled with the financial burden of paying full salary and allowances since the suspended employee embroils himself in the prosecution.
In the present case, he was prosecuted twice on allegations of corruption and his suspension was a consequence of his own involvement in criminal proceedings. Thus the high court noted that the Municipal Commissioner had considered the relevant facts and exercised discretion appropriately in converting the suspension period into different kinds of leave.
Accordingly, the Bombay High Court held no arbitrariness or illegality was demonstrated in the decision of the competent authority, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the decision to deny full back wages for the suspension period was upheld.