Summary: V.C. Jain, a former bank manager at State Bank of India (SBI), was denied pension benefits for his suspension period despite being found not guilty of criminal charges. The court decided his acquittal wasn't "clear-cut," and the bank wasn't responsible for his suspension.
In 2002, V.C. Jain, a Branch Manager at SBI in Laxmi Nagar, was accused of asking for a bribe. Gurcharan Singh filed a complaint that led to Jain's arrest on September 2, 2002. He was released on bail but suspended on September 21, 2002.
On July 8, 2005, Jain was found guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to time in prison. Following his conviction, SBI fired him on October 14, 2005, took away his gratuity, and treated his suspension as unpaid leave.
Jain challenged his conviction, and on December 24, 2010, the High Court found him not guilty, citing doubts in the prosecution's case. However, this acquittal was not considered "clear-cut" as it was based on giving him the benefit of the doubt.
After his acquittal, Jain was allowed back on March 25, 2011, but with conditions: no back pay for the suspension period and no counting of this time towards pension benefits. Jain accepted these terms without complaint and retired on November 30, 2011.
After retiring, Jain tried to have his suspension period counted for pension benefits. On October 31, 2023, a Single Judge ruled in his favor, treating the suspension as service time for pension purposes. However, SBI challenged this decision.
On January 30, 2026, the Delhi High Court, led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, overturned the Single Judge's decision. The court emphasized that Jain's acquittal was not clear-cut and that SBI was not responsible for his suspension. Therefore, the period couldn't be treated as service for pension benefits.
"The discretion exercised by the competent authority of the appellant is based on relevant facts, and therefore, for this reason as well, interference in such a discretionary decision of the appellant is unwarranted."
The court decided that V.C. Jain would not receive pension benefits for the time he was suspended, as his acquittal was not clear-cut, and the bank was not at fault for his suspension.
