Declaring a period of absence as 'dies non' constitutes a major penalty requiring a mandatory departmental inquiry.

The petitioner, a Teacher (Panchayat), was directed to accommodate another school via an order dated 09.01.2014.

Due to non-compliance, he was served a show-cause notice.

Although the petitioner was eventually directed back to his original post on 30.04.2014, he was allegedly not permitted to join the services.

Following a series of writ petitions (WPS No. 1203 of 2014 and WPS No. 1399 of 2015) and a subsequent contempt petition, the petitioner was finally permitted to join on 26.08.2015.

On 25.11.2017, Respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order declaring 609 days of the petitioner's absence as ‘dies non’.

The petitioner challenged this order on the grounds that it was passed without conducting a departmental inquiry.

1. Whether the declaration of a period of absence as ‘dies non’ constitutes a major penalty.

2. Whether the respondent authority can validly inflict the penalty of ‘dies non’ without conducting a formal departmental inquiry under the relevant service rules.

The court primarily relied on the legal principle established in Battilal v. Union of India and others [2005 (3) MPHT 32 (DB)], which clarifies that a direction to treat a period as ‘dies non’ means that while service continuity is maintained, the period does not count for leave, salary, increment, or pension.

Fundamental Rule (F.R.) 54(1) regarding the duties of an authority upon the reinstatement of a government servant.

The procedural requirements of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

The court examined whether the respondents followed due process before declaring the 609-day absence as ‘dies non’. It noted that while a show-cause notice was issued and replied to, no formal departmental inquiry was conducted.

Applying the ratio from Battilal, the court reasoned that because ‘dies non’ results in the deprivation of financial benefits like increments and pension, it is inherently punitive.

The court observed that under the CCA Rules of 1966, a major penalty cannot be inflicted without a full departmental inquiry and a fair opportunity for the employee to be heard.

The court found that the authority had straightway passed the order based on a summary show-cause notice, which failed to meet the statutory procedural requirements for imposing such a penalty.

The court quashed the impugned order dated 25.11.2017 (Annexure P/20) as being contrary to law. The writ petition was allowed, granting the petitioner relief against the declaration of ‘dies non’.