01Facts
The petitioner, a Gram Rozgar Sahayak posted at Gram Panchayat Durjanpura, challenged an order dated 7 May 2025 deducting his salary for April 2025 on a “no work no pay” basis.
¶ 1–7He alleged that inadequate infrastructure prevented him from properly implementing government schemes and that he had received no opportunity to respond before the deduction.
¶ 1–7The State relied on earlier show-cause notices concerning absence in September 2024 and on notices and communications issued after the impugned order.
¶ 1–7The petitioner also stated that salary had not been paid after April 2025.
¶ 1102Issues
i.Whether the salary deduction for April 2025 was made in violation of the principles of natural justice, given the petitioner’s alleged unauthorised absence and non-implementation of schemes.
¶ 3–5, 8–9ii.Whether the respondents were required to follow the applicable procedure before taking disciplinary action against the petitioner.
¶ 9–10, 1203Law Applied
The Court applied the principles of natural justice, holding that where an order imposes financial loss and is stigmatic—by attributing unauthorised absence or misconduct—the affected employee must be given a proper opportunity to respond before the order is made.
¶ 8–9It also referred to the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Rojgar Guarantee Parishad policy dated 24 June 2025, which provides a procedure for disciplinary action against Gram Rozgar Sahayaks.
¶ 8–904Reasoning
The impugned order stated that the petitioner had remained unauthorisedly absent and deducted his salary for April 2025, making it stigmatic and financially adverse.
¶ 8–9The two notices relied on by the State predated the relevant salary period and concerned earlier alleged absence; the other notices were issued after the impugned order.
¶ 8–9The Court therefore found that no notice had been given to the petitioner to explain the alleged absence or non-implementation of schemes during April 2025.
¶ 8–9In those circumstances, the deduction was made in breach of natural justice and without following the applicable procedure.
¶ 8–905Holding
The Court quashed the order dated 7 May 2025 insofar as it concerned the petitioner.
¶ 10–12It permitted the respondents to take appropriate action after following the procedure in the policy and the principles of natural justice.
¶ 10–12It also directed the respondents to examine the petitioner’s claim for unpaid salary after April 2025 and, if his service had not been discontinued, ensure payment according to his entitlement.
¶ 10–12The petition was disposed of.
¶ 10–12Original Court PDF
Rohit GoswamivsState Of M.P.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
