Madan Lal Dhruw vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The appellant, Madan Lal Dhruw, filed a writ appeal challenging an order dated August 29, 2023, by which a learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition. The appellant was initially implicated in a criminal case under Sections 302, 201, and 120(B)/34 of the IPC. Although acquitted by the Sessions Court on June 14, 2021, his period of detention was treated as 'no work no pay' without a show cause notice. The appellant contended this violated Fundamental Rule 54 B(3) and Rule 24(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977, as well as Rule 7 of the Conduct Rules, 1965, arguing that declaring absence as 'dies-non' without a departmental inquiry and an opportunity to be heard was punitive and arbitrary. The State supported the Single Judge's order, arguing that since the facts of detention were undisputed, principles of natural justice were not required.

Held

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal. The Court found no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The reasoning was based on the undisputed fact that the appellant remained in jail for a significant period (three years, four months, and twenty-one days) due to his involvement in a criminal case. The Court held that when facts are not in dispute, there is no necessity to issue a show cause notice or strictly comply with the principle of natural justice, as it would amount to mere formalities. The Court also noted that the respondent authority had passed a detailed order on November 26, 2021, and the appellant was unable to point out any perversity or illegality in it. Therefore, the Court concluded that the learned Single Judge had not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition. The appeal was dismissed in limine.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order declaring the period of absence from duty as 'dies-non' without holding a departmental inquiry is violative of Rule 24(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977, and Rule 7 of the Conduct Rules, 1965, and thus punitive and unsustainable without due process? Appellant's arguments: The appellant argued that the learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that declaring the absence period as 'dies-non' without a departmental inquiry, especially when the absence was due to detention in a criminal case for which he was later acquitted, violated the mandatory provisions of Rule 24(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977, and Rule 7 of the Conduct Rules, 1965. He contended that such an order is punitive and cannot be passed without following the procedure laid down in the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Furthermore, he argued that the order treating his custody period as 'no work no pay' was stigmatic and issued without affording him an opportunity of hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through the learned Government Advocate, supported the impugned order, submitting that the learned Single Judge had considered all aspects and dismissed the writ petition appropriately, warranting no interference. They further argued that since the facts of the appellant's detention and period in jail were undisputed, the non-compliance with the principle of natural justice would not vitiate the action taken, as issuing a show cause notice would have been a mere formality.