Rohit Goswami vs State Of M.P.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30093
1 WP-40884-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
th
ON THE 27 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 40884 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC020396332025
ROHIT GOSWAMI
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Neeraj Kumar Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Praneesha Nayyar - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated
07.05.2025 whereby the salary of the petitioner has been deducted on the ground
of "no work no pay".
2. The petitioner is working on the post of Gram Rozgar Sahayak and was
posted at Gram Panchayat Durjanpura, Manpur, District Indore. The petitioner
sent several letters thereby drawing attention of the authority that the place where
the petitioner has been posted lacks complete infrastructure, thus he is not able to
properly implement the schemes of the government. Thus, he requested by
repeated letters (Annexure P/3) for providing the essential machinery so as to
enable the petitioner to work. The respondents instead of providing the machinery
to the petitioner had passed the impugned order whereby the salary of the
petitioner for 30 days for the month of April 2025 was not paid on the ground of
"no work no pay".
3. The case of the petitioner is that before passing this order on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 27-Oct-26
6:07:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30093
2 WP-40884-2025
07.05.2025, no opportunity of hearing of any kind was given to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the order
would show that it is a stigmatic order as it imputes misconduct on the part of the
petitioner. It says that the petitioner is not attending meetings of the Janpad
Panchayat held for assessment of work. Learned counsel submits that in fact, the
petitioner has duly attended all the meetings and has made his best efforts for
implementing of all the schemes of the Janpad Panchayat or even the State
Government in the Gram Panchayat where the petitioner is working. However,
due to lack of infrastructure there are many difficulties which the petitioner has
already pointed out but the respondents in complete violation of the principles of
natural justice has passed the impugned order which is not sustainable in the eyes
of law.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was
given several show-cause notices before the impugned order dated 07.05.2025
was passed. She refers to Annexure R/3 which are two show-cause notices issued
on 13.09.2024 and 19.09.2024 where it has been mentioned that the petitioner has
remained absent from the place of duty without any sanction of leave from the
competent authority. Learned counsel submits that on 03.09.2024 and 19.09.2024
two show-cause notices were issued. She further points out that even on
14.05.2025 a communication was sent by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad
Panchayat, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Mhow to the Chief Executive Officer of Jila
Panchayat Indore thereby pointing out that the petitioner is remaining absent from
his duties. She further points out that on 30.06.2025, a show-cause notice was
issued to the petitioner for negligence in implementation of Pradhan Mantri Awas
Yojana. She also points out that on 27.05.2025 also a show-cause notice was
issued to the petitioner for remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty. She thus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 27-Oct-26
6:07:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30093
3 WP-40884-2025
submits that the respondents have complied with the principles of natural justice

and several show-cause notices have been issued to the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the State thus submits that petition being bereft of
merits deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the case file.
8. A bare perusal of the order dated 07.05.2025 would show that there is
complete absence of any discussion on the show-cause notice issued to the
petitioner or the response received from him before passing the impugned order.
There is no doubt about the fact that the order is stigmatic as it states that the
petitioner is remaining unauthorisedly absence from his duties and thus, salary of
30 days for the month of April, 2025 has been deducted. Now, if the order dated
07.05.2025 is seen in the light of the show-cause notices which have been referred
by the learned counsel for the State, then it will be seen that two notices dated
13.09.2024 and 19.09.2024 were issued prior to this order. However, both of
them do not pertain to the period for which salary has been deducted i.e. the
month of April, 2025 and all other notices are subsequent to order dated
07.05.2025. Thus, it is clear that for the month of April, 2025 no notice was
given to the petitioner for explaining the so-called absence and non-
implementation of the schemes of Panchayat.
9. Considering the same, this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as
the order entails financial loss to the petitioner. Thus, in all fairness, the
respondents were required to issue proper notice in accordance with the policy
dated 24.06.2025 namely Madhya Pradesh Rajya Rojgar Guarantee Parishad
which provides elaborate procedure for taking disciplinary action against the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 27-Oct-26
6:07:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30093
4 WP-40884-2025
Gram Rojgar Sahayak working in various Panchayat.

10. As such, the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 to the extent as it
relates to the present petitioner is hereby quashed. However, the respondents are
set at liberty to pass appropriate order after following the procedure as provided in
the aforesaid policy and by following the principles of natural.
11. In view of the fact that the petitioner has stated that even after the
month of April 2025 no further salary has been paid to him till date, the
respondents are directed to examine this issue and if there is no order of
discontinuation of service, then it shall be ensured that the petitioner is paid salary
in accordance with his entitlement.
12. It is hereby clarified that this Court has not restrained the respondents
for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner, however, it must conform
with the established procedure and not in an arbitrary manner.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
vidya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 27-Oct-26
6:07:44 PM