The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday closed a long-running service dispute involving a Food Corporation of India (FCI) officer who spent years under suspension after a corruption case that eventually fell apart. Sitting in Court, the division bench upheld relief granted earlier, refusing to interfere with an order that treated the officer’s suspension period as time spent on duty.
The case had a slightly somber note. Ved Parkash Malhotra, the officer at the centre of the litigation, passed away during the appeal. His legal heirs carried the matter forward.
Background
Malhotra was serving as Assistant Manager (Electrical) with the FCI when he was trapped by the Vigilance Bureau in April 2005 on allegations of demanding a ₹10,000 bribe for awarding an electrical maintenance contract at Adampur, Jalandhar. An FIR followed under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
He was placed under deemed suspension, reinstated briefly, and then suspended again after his conviction by the trial court in August 2009. The FCI dismissed him from service without a departmental inquiry, citing moral turpitude. His gratuity was forfeited, and the suspension period was declared “not spent on duty.”
Malhotra superannuated in December 2009. Years later, in August 2014, the High Court acquitted him in the criminal appeal, finding serious doubts in the prosecution story. When the FCI still refused to regularise his suspension period, he approached the High Court again. A Single Judge partly allowed his writ petition in 2017, directing FCI to treat the suspension spells as duty. That order led to the present appeal by FCI.
Court’s Observations
The division bench, comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, went straight to the heart of the dispute: whether Malhotra’s acquittal could be brushed aside as a mere “benefit of doubt.”
The judges examined Regulation 66 of the FCI Staff Regulations, which draws a line between an “honourable acquittal” and other acquittals. “The competent authority does have discretion,” the bench noted, “but that discretion cannot be unbridled.”
Referring to the criminal appeal judgment, the court pointed out that the prosecution version itself was found doubtful. The bench observed that the High Court, while acquitting Malhotra earlier, had accepted his explanation and found no material evidence against him. “The mere use of the words ‘benefit of doubt’ cannot be read mechanically,” the court said, adding that context matters.
The bench was also clear that judicial review does not stop just because service regulations give power to the employer. If the authority’s view is not a “possible view,” courts can step in.
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes Doctor's Recruitment Petition After Viva Voce Conducted
Decision
Holding that Malhotra’s acquittal was, in substance, an honourable one, the High Court dismissed FCI’s appeal. The judges upheld the earlier direction to treat the suspension periods from April 2005 to February 2006 and August 2009 to December 2009 as time spent on duty, along with all consequential benefits.
“As a result thereof, the appeal is dismissed, being bereft of any merit,” the bench concluded, bringing the two-decade-old dispute to a close.
Case Title: Food Corporation of India & Others vs. Ved Parkash Malhotra
Case No.: LPA-54-2018 (O&M)
Case Type: Letters Patent Appeal (Service Matter)
Decision Date: 19 December 2025
