Appointing Authority alone is competent to order dies non for Group ‘A’ officers under FR 17-A

The applicant, a Group ‘A’ officer in the Department of Posts, served as Registrar at the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) on deputation until 06.12.2013

The respondents claimed the applicant failed to assume charge as Director, Postal Services (DPS), Tripura, following his relief from TDSAT, and subsequently joined as DPS Muzaffarpur only on 21.07.2014

Consequently, the respondents issued an impugned order dated 06.10.2022, treating the 216-day period from 17.12.2013 to 20.07.2014 as dies non under FR 17(1) and Rule 27 of CCS (Pension) Rules, citing a "lack of devotion to duty"

The applicant challenged this on grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority and failure to conduct disciplinary proceedings despite alleging misconduct

1. Whether the Secretary, Department of Posts, or Director (Staff) was the "Competent Authority" under FR 17-A to issue an order of dies non for a Group ‘A’ officer

2. Whether the respondents could legally treat the period of absence as dies non based on alleged misconduct ("unbecoming of a government servant") without initiating formal disciplinary proceedings

3. Whether the discrepancy in dates between the Show Cause Notice and the Final Order indicated a non-application of mind

Fundamental Rule (FR) 17-A, specifically Explanation 2, which defines "Competent Authority" for the purpose of declaring a break in service as the "Appointing Authority"

State of Punjab v. P.L. Singla (2008), which established that if an employer treats unauthorized absence as misconduct, it must hold an inquiry and impose punishment; otherwise, it may condone the absence by granting leave

Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India (2012), ruling that unauthorized absence cannot be deemed "willful" or "misconduct" unless proven so through a departmental proceeding

The Tribunal found that under FR 17-A, the "Competent Authority" to declare dies non for a Group ‘A’ officer is the Appointing Authority (the President), whereas the order was issued by the Secretary/Director (Staff)

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' reliance on the Postal Manual, noting that statutory Fundamental Rules override departmental manuals

Following P.L. Singla and Krushnakant B. Parmar, the Tribunal reasoned that once the administration identifies absence as a misconduct, it is legally obligated to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings under CCS (CCA) Rules to prove "willfulness"

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application, quashed the impugned order dated 06.10.2022, and directed the respondents to treat the period from 17.12.2013 to 20.07.2014 as leave for which the applicant is eligible with all consequential benefits