Any Order of Dies-Non Affecting Financial Interests Passed Without Affording a Hearing Violates Principles of Natural Justice.

The applicant, an Assistant Manager at MTNL, alleged that following a complaint against his controlling officer, he was punitively transferred and subsequently harassed, physically evicted from his office, and barred from entry.

On 30.09.2020, the respondents issued an order declaring the period from 01.08.2020 to 24.09.2020 (55 days) as dies non without break in service.

The respondents contended the applicant was unauthorizedly absent, failed to submit joining reports at his new posting, and held that dies non was an administrative consequence of "no work, no pay" under MTNL Leave Rules rather than a disciplinary penalty.

The applicant challenged the order on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, factual errors, and violation of natural justice as no notice or hearing was provided.

1. Whether the dies non order passed without a show cause notice or departmental inquiry violated the principles of natural justice and is consequently void.

2. Whether dies non constitutes a punitive measure requiring formal disciplinary proceedings before imposition.

The court relied on the principle of Audi Alteram Partem (duty to hear the party before condemning), emphasizing that administrative orders with civil consequences must follow natural justice.

It cited Ridge v. Baldwin [1964 AC 401] and Rajesh Kumar & Ors. v. Dy. CIT [(2007) 2 SCC 181] to establish that any decision in violation of natural justice is void.

Furthermore, the court referenced J. Prasad Babu Vs. Union of India (OA 393/2020) and Dr. Anil Kumar Varma v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2005 (1) M.P.H.T. 24], which categorize dies non as a stigmatic/major penalty because it affects salary, increments, and pension, thus necessitating a regular departmental inquiry or at least a show-cause notice prior to issuance.

The Tribunal observed that the impugned order dated 30.09.2020 was passed without issuing a Show Cause Notice (SCN) or providing the applicant an opportunity to present his defense.

While the respondents argued the order was a mere administrative application of "no work, no pay," the Tribunal found that the financial and service implications of dies non (denial of salary and potential impact on service benefits) necessitated adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice (PNJ).

The court determined that the failure to hear the applicant before "condemning" his period of absence as dies non rendered the procedure flawed, regardless of the merits of the respondents' claims regarding the applicant's conduct or unauthorized occupation of premises.

Without quashing the order outright on merits, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Executive Director, MTNL, Delhi, with directions to treat the OA as a representation. The respondents are directed to grant the applicant a fair and reasonable hearing and pass a well-reasoned, speaking order within three months. The OA was disposed of with no order as to costs.