ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No.2 to the extent that the respondents have denied the salary to the petitioner except subsistence allowances for the period when the petitioner was in during suspension period. The petitioner has also prayed for grant of one day salary and one annual increment. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sweeper at Eklavya Adarsh (Model) residential school Mainpat, Block Mainpart, District Sarguja. The petitioner was suspended by the Collector on the count that he was negligence towards discharge of his duty and his headquarter was changed as he was posted in the office of Assistant Commissioner Tribal Department Ambikapur. The petitioner was relieved on 13.02.2015 to join the transferred place of posting thereafter charge sheet was issued to him on 26.03.2015. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for not doing the cleaning work assigned to him and he has threatened the students for not cleaning the toilet. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet on 07.04.2015 denying the allegation made in the charge sheet mainly contending that 54 toilets and 54 bathrooms have been constructed in the school and the hostel and there is shortage of supply of water as such it cannot be said that he was negligence towards discharging his duty. It is emphatically denied that he has ever forced or threatened to any student to do the cleaning work. It has also been contended that he has not taken any leave and doing the work without any break, as such he prayed for withdrawal of the charge sheet. 3. The respondent considering the reply has passed the order of punishment of withholding three increments without cumulative effect and warning was also issued on 20.07.2015 and thereafter the petitioner was posted on his earlier place of posting i.e. Eklavya Adarsh (Model) residential school Mainpat, Block Mainpart, District Sarguja. 4. The petitioner has made representation on 24.10.2016 claiming salary of the suspension period and regularization of his suspension period. It has also been contended that subsequently the petitioner remained absent on 30.12.2016, therefore, again a show cause notice was issued to him on 15.01.2017. 4. The petitioner has made representation on 24.10.2016 claiming salary of the suspension period and regularization of his suspension period. It has also been contended that subsequently the petitioner remained absent on 30.12.2016, therefore, again a show cause notice was issued to him on 15.01.2017. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice which was found unsatisfactory therefore, punishment of one increment without cumulative effect was passed on 01.02.2017. The respondent vide order dated 28.02.2017 has rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 24.10.2016 (Annexure P/11) and treated the suspension period as on duty. It has been further ordered that no salary for the suspension period is payable to the petitioner vide its order dated 28.02.2017. This order is being assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition. 5. The respondents have filed the return denying the allegation made in the writ petition mainly contending that the order dated 28.02.2017 is in accordance with the rules. It has been contended that looking to the conduct of the petitioner, grant of subsistence allowance during suspension period, denial of salary is legal and justified and does not warrant interference. It has been further contended that from plain reading of Rule 54 of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules, it is clear that when a government servant has been suspended, is reinstated or would have been so reinstatement by the competent authority, the competent authority to order for reinstatement shall consider and make specific order with regard to pay and allowance to be paid to the employees for the period of suspension and to decide whether employee will be treated on duty or not during the said period of suspension. The respondent considering the fact that the petitioner was punished and order of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect has been passed as such the order passed by the respondent on 28.02.2017 is in conformity with the fundamental rules, as such it does not warrant interference and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order is bad in law and against the principle of natural justice as the petitioner has been deprived from the monetary benefits, thus at least he should be given an opportunity of hearing before passing such order. The order is against the principle of natural justice, fair play and deserves to be quashed by this Court. 7. The order is against the principle of natural justice, fair play and deserves to be quashed by this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the order is legal, justified and in accordance with fundamental rules 54-B(3), as such does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. From above factual submission made by the parties the point to be determined by this Court is whether Fundamental Rules 54B is applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case or not, which reads as under:- “Rule 54-B. (1) When a Government servant who has been suspended, is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order- (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement on superannuation as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 53, where a Government servant under suspension dies before the disciplinary proceedings or Court proceedings instituted against him are concluded, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death shall be treated as duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and allowances for that period to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already paid. (3) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8) be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended: Provided that where such authority is of the opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government servant, it may, after giving him an opportunity to make his representation (within sixty days from the date on which the communication in this regard is served on him) and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the Government servant shall be paid for the period of such delay only such amount (not being the whole) of such pay and allowances as it may determine. (4) In a case falling under sub-rule (3) the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (5) In cases other than those falling under sub-rules (2) and (3) the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rules (8) and (9) be paid such [amount (not being the whole)] of the pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, as the competent authority may determine, after giving notice to the Government servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period [which in no case shall exceed sixty days from the date on which the notice has been served], as may be specified in the notice. (6) Where, suspension is revoked pending finalization of the disciplinary or the Court proceedings, any order passed under sub-rule (1) before the conclusion of the proceedings against the Government servant, shall be reviewed on its own motion after the conclusion of the proceedings by the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1) who shall make an order according to the provisions of sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (5), as the case may be. (7) In a case falling under sub-rule (5), the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose: Provided that, if the Government servant so desires such authority may order that the period of suspension shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant. NOTE.- The order of the competent authority under the preceding proviso shall be absolute and no higher sanction shall be necessary for the grant of- (a) extraordinary leave in excess of three months in the case of temporary Government servant; and (b) leave of any kind in excess of five years in the case of permanent or quasi-permanent Government servant. (8) The payment of allowances under sub-rule (2), sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (5) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowances are admissible. (9) The [amount] determined under the proviso to sub-rule (3) or under sub-rule (5) shall not be less than subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under Rule 53.” 10. The Fundamental Rules 54 has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Gopala Krishna Naidu vs State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1968 AIR 240 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “In our view, F.R. 54 contemplates a duty to act in accordance with the basic concept of justice and fairplay. The authority therefore had to afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to show cause why clause 3 and 5 should not be applied and that having not been done the order must be held to be invalid.” 11. In the present facts of the case, neither the respondent authority has issued any notice nor has given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before denying the salary of the petitioner for suspension period but has passed the order. Thus, the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure P/1) is against the Fundamental Rules 54 and the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of M. Gopala krishna Naidu (supra). Thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed by this Court. 12. Thus, the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure P/1) is against the Fundamental Rules 54 and the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of M. Gopala krishna Naidu (supra). Thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed by this Court. 12. The impugned order also deserves to be quashed in view of the fact that the petitioner was inflected with punishment of withholding of three increments without cumulative effect which is minor penalty as defined in Rule 10(IV) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966. The record of the case would clearly demonstrate that procedure for imposition of minor penalty was initiated by the respondents, therefore, the respondent authority should have treated the suspension period as on duty and should have paid difference of suspension allowances and salary to the petitioner. The State of Chhattisgarh has issued Circular No. C-6/01/2003/F/3, dated 13.01.2005 which clearly provides that if minor penalty is imposed upon the Government servant then suspension cannot be held to be justified and the Government servant is entitled to get salary for the entire suspension period. The relevant portion of the circular is reproduced below:- ^^fo"k; & 'kkldh; vuko';d djuk rFkk 'kkfLr dh fLFkfr vof/k vof/k ekU; fd;k tkukA xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx 5- fopkjksijkUr 'kklu esa vc ;g fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd fdlh 'kkldh; lsod ds fo:) takp esa vkjksiksa ds Lo:i dks ns[krs gq, izFke n`"V;k ;g izrhr gks fd lacaf/kr 'kkldh; lsod ij inP;qfr] lsok ls gVk;k tkuk vFkok vfuok;Z lsok fuo`fRr tSlh dksbZ eq[; 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir dh tk ldrh gS rHkh mls fuyafcr fd;k tk, vFkkZr~ y?kq 'kkfLr ds ekeyksa esa mls fuyafcr ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A 6- eq[; 'kkfLr gsrq lafLFkr foHkkxh; takp esa ;fn fdlh fuyafcr 'kkldh; lsod ij takp mijkar y?kq 'kkfLr gh vf/kjksfir dh tkrh gS rks mldk fuyacu vkSfpR;iw.kZ ugha ekuk tk ldrkA vr% jkT; 'kklu us fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd ,sls ekeyksa esa lacaf/kr 'kkldh; lsod dh fuyacu vof/k dks ewyHkwr fu;e 54&ch ds ifjizs{; esa drZO; vof/k ekU; dj fuyacu vof/k ds laiw.kZ osru HkRrs ¼'kkldh; lsod dks fuyacu vof/k esa Hkqxrku fd, x, thou fuokZg HkRrs dh jkf’k dk lek;kstu dj½ fn, tk,aA ;g fu.kZ; bl Kkiu ds izlkfjr gksus dh frfFk ls ykxw gksxk rFkk ftu izdj.kksa esa fu.kZ; fy;k tk pqdk gS] os iqu% ugha [kksys tk;saxsA^^ 13. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that the procedure for imposition of minor penalty was initiated against the petitioner and he was inflected with minor penalty of withholding of three increments and as per the Government circular dated 13.01.2005 which clearly provides that while imposing minor penalty the Government servant should not be suspended even if minor penalty is imposed then suspension cannot be held to be justified. The circular further provides that the Government servant should be treated as on duty as per the Fundamental Rules 54-B and the Government servant should be given difference of salary of suspension period after revocation of suspension. Thus, the order dated 28.02.2017 so far as treating the suspension period is suspension for the purpose of salary is nonest, bad-in-law and the same deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside and the respondent shall pay difference of salary to the petitioner from 20.07.2015 till his suspension was revoked and he was inflicted with the punishment of three increments without cumulative effect on 20.07.2015. 14. The respondent authority vide subsequent order dated 01.02.2017 (Annexure P/10) has also imposed minor penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect whereas the petitioner is already undergoing punishment of withholding of three increments without cumulative effect since 20.07.2015 and when the subsequent punishment dated 01.02.2017 was passed, the petitioner was already undergone punishment of withholding of increment, thus, in the same period, he was inflicted with punishment of withholding of one increment which is nothing but double jeopardize, as such, the subsequent punishment dated 01.02.2017 deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. 15. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure P/1) so far as denial of salary of the suspension period is quashed. Rest of the order shall be remain intact and order dated 01.02.2017 (Annexure P/10) is also quashed. 16. The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.