Madan Lal Dhruw vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Madan Lal Dhruw, a Constable in the Excise Department, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26-11-2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Raipur. The order treated the petitioner's jail custody from 24-1-2018 to 14-6-2021 (3 years, 4 months, 21 days) as 'no work no pay', while the remaining period was to be treated as 'on duty'. The petitioner was initially booked under Sections 302, 201, and 120(B)/34 of the IPC. He was acquitted by the First Additional Sessions Judge on 14-6-2021, along with other co-accused, by granting the benefit of doubt. The petitioner argued that his jail period was treated as 'no work no pay' without a show cause notice, violating Fundamental Rule 54 B(3) and the principle of natural justice, and cited M. Gopalkrishna Naidu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.

Held

The Court held that the fact of the petitioner remaining in jail from 24-1-2018 to 14-6-2021 is undisputed. Therefore, non-compliance with the principle of natural justice, such as issuing a show cause notice, would not vitiate the action taken by the respondents, as it would amount to mere formalities when facts are not in dispute. The Court found the judgment cited by the petitioner, M. Gopalkrishna Naidu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, to be inapplicable because in that case, disputed facts required ascertainment before passing an order, necessitating compliance with Fundamental Rules. In the present case, the facts were undisputed. The Court also noted that the impugned order dated 26-11-2021 was detailed and the petitioner failed to point out any perversity or illegality warranting interference. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the denial of salary for the period of jail custody, from 24-1-2018 to 14-6-2021, without issuing a show cause notice, violates Fundamental Rule 54 B(3) and the principles of natural justice, thereby entitling the petitioner to full salary for the entire suspension period? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since he was acquitted and the jail period was treated as 'no work no pay' without any show cause notice, it constitutes a violation of Fundamental Rule 54 B(3). He contended that the revocation of suspension and denial of salary during the suspension period, without an opportunity of hearing, is contrary to law. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M. Gopalkrishna Naidu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, asserting entitlement to full salary even during jail custody. Revenue's Contention: The State counsel argued that the petitioner remained in jail from 24-1-2018 to 14-6-2021, which are undisputed facts, thus no opportunity of hearing was required. They contended that as the petitioner was in jail during the suspension period, he is not entitled to protection under Fundamental Rule 54, and the cited judgment in M. Gopalkrishna Naidu is not applicable to the present facts.