Ramsumer Saket vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4644 MP

                                                 W.P.No.7118/2022

                             1



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT JABALPUR
                            BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                    ON THE 1st OF APRIL, 2022
               WRIT PETITION No. 7118 of 2022
       Between:-
       RAMSUMER SAKET S/O VISHWANATH
       SAKET , AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
       OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT TEACHER R/O
       GRAM DHDHNI TORRA-TOLA, THANA
       AND TEHSIL MOUGANJ, DISTRICT REWA
       (MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                                .....PETITIONER
       (SHRI CHANDRIKA PRASAD DWIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL
       FOR THE PETITIONER)
       AND
1.     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
       THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETRY
       SCHOOL   EDUCATION   DEPARTMENT
       MANTRALAYA    VALLABH    BHAWAN
       BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)



2.     THE COLLECTOR DISTRICT REWA, M.P.
       REWA, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)



3.     CHIEF  EXECUTIVE  OFFICER   ZILA
       PANCHAYAT, REWA, M.P. REWA, M.P.
       (MADHYA PRADESH)



4.     JOINT DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
       REWA DIVISION REWA, M.P. (MADHYA
       PRADESH)



5.     DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER REWA
       DISTRICT-  REWA,  M.P.  (MADHYA
       PRADESH)



6.     BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER MOUGANJ
       DISTRICT- REWA,   M.P.  (MADHYA
                                                          W.P.No.7118/2022

                                    2



       PRADESH)



7.     SANKUL       PRACHARYA,      GOVT.
       EXCELLENCE     HIGHER   SECONDARY
       SCHOOL MOUGANJ DISTRICT- REWA,
       M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
       (SHRI LALIT JOGLEKAR, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
       THE RESPONDENTS/STATE)

      This petition coming on for admission on this day, the court

passed the following:

                               ORDER

By filing this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.5.2020, annexure P/1, passed by the respondent no.5 wherein the period w.e.f. 26.7.2018 to 17.9.2018 have been treated as "No Work No Pay" on the ground of petitioner being in judicial custody/detention of 55 days.

2. The petitioner on account of criminal case being registered vide Crime No.57/2017 for the offence punishable under sections 376 of the I.P.C. as well as remaining in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, was placed under suspension by invoking rule 9(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Later, the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charges. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension w.e.f. 26.7.2018 to 17.9.2018 which has been denied to the petitioner on the principles of "No Work No Pay".

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer and stated that the petitioner was not kept away from the work from any order of the respondents. The respondents have rightly regularized the aforesaid period by treating it as "spent on duty for all W.P.No.7118/2022

purposes except salary". The salary has been denied on the principles "No Work No Pay". Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents contended that no salary can be paid to the petitioner for the aforesaid period when he remained under judicial custody/detention. The petitioner has been denied the salary on the ground that "No Work No Pay". In this context he has placed reliance in the case of Management of Reserve Bank of India Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 54.

4. Learned counsel for respondents also relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Baldev Singh Vs. Union of India and others (2005) 8 SCC 747, wherein the Apex Court in Para 7 held as under :-

"As the factual position noted clearly indicates the appellant was not in actual service for the period he was in custody. Merely because there has been an acquittal does not automatically entitle him to get salary for the concerned period. This is more so, on the logic of no work no pay. It is to be noted that the appellant was terminated from service because of the conviction. Effect of the same does not get diluted because of subsequent acquittal for the purpose of counting service. The aforesaid position was clearly stated in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and Anr. (1996 (11) SC 603)."

5. He also placed reliance on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Jaipal Singh (2004) 1 SCC 121, whereby it has been held :-

"On a careful consideration of the matter and the materials on record, including the judgment and orders brought to our notice, we are of the view that it is well accepted that an order rejecting a special leave petition at the threshold without detailed reasons therefore does not constitute any declaration of law by this Court or constitute a binding precedent. Per contra, the decision relied upon for the appellant is one on merits and for reasons specifically recorded therefore and operates as a binding precedent as well. On going through the same, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken in W.P.No.7118/2022

[1996] 11 SCC 603 (supra). If prosecution, which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the person concerned was at the behest or by department itself, perhaps different considerations may arise. On the other hand, if as a citizen the employee or a public servant got involved in a criminal case and it after initial conviction by the trial court, he gets acquittal on appeal subsequently, the department cannot in any manner be found fault with for having kept him out of service, since the law obliges, a person convicted of an offence to be so kept out and not to be retained in service. Consequently, the reasons given in the decision relied upon, for the appellants are not only convincing but are in consonance with reasonableness as well.

Though exception taken to that part of the order directing re- instatement cannot be sustained and the respondent has to be re-instated, in service, for the reason that the earlier discharge was on account of those criminal proceedings and conviction only, the appellants are well within their rights to deny back wages to the respondent for the period he was not in service. The appellants cannot be made liable to pay for the period for

which they could not avail of the services of the respondent. The High Court, in our view, committed a grave error, in allowing back wages also, without adverting to all such relevant aspects and considerations. Consequently, the order of the High Court in so far as it directed payment of back wages are liable to be and is hereby set aside."

6. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

7. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down in the cases of Baldev Singh and Jaipal Singh (supra), I find no error on the part of the respondents in denying the salary to the petitioner for the period w.e.f. 26.7.2018 to 17.9.2018. The petitioner remained absent on account of his misconduct/involvement in a criminal case, therefore, the respondents are no way responsible for keeping the petitioner away from duties. There is no merit in the claim made by the petitioner. The petitioner has been rightly denied the salary W.P.No.7118/2022

on the ground of "no work no pay". In doing so, the respondents have not committed any error, warranting interference.

8. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE HS

Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.04.07 13:08:55 +05'30'