Declaring a period of absence as “dies non” is a major penalty requiring departmental inquiry.

The petitioner, appointed as Lecturer (Chemistry) on 28 December 1991, was suspended on 4 November 1993 and his suspension was revoked on 2 November 1994.

He was transferred to Government High School, Shivprasad Nagar, District Surguja, but could not join because no post of Lecturer (Chemistry) was vacant. After making representations, he was permitted to join by order dated 2 February 1996 and resumed duty on 3 April 1996.

Subsequently, the respondent authorities declared his absence from 1 April 1995 to 2 April 1996—368 days—as “dies non” by order dated 10 March 2014.

The petitioner challenged the order, contending that it was punitive and had been passed without a departmental inquiry or opportunity of hearing.

The State opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner’s representation had previously been rejected by the Collector on 22 May 2023 and that the rejection order had not been challenged.

1. Whether declaring the petitioner’s period of absence as “dies non” constituted a major penalty affecting his salary, increments, leave and pension.

2. Whether such an order could be passed without conducting a departmental inquiry and providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing under the applicable service rules.

3. Whether the order dated 10 March 2014 declaring 368 days as “dies non” was legally sustainable.

The Court applied the principle that an order declaring a period as “dies non” is punitive because the period does not count towards leave, salary, increments and pension.

Relying on Battilal v. Union of India, 2005 (3) MPHT 32 (DB), the Court held that treating a period as “dies non” amounts to imposing a major penalty and cannot be done without following the departmental inquiry procedure under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

The Court also referred to Fundamental Rule 54(1), which requires the competent authority, upon reinstatement, to make a specific determination regarding pay and allowances for the period of absence and whether that period is to be treated as duty.

The Court found that the petitioner’s inability to join was connected with the absence of a vacant post and that he was subsequently permitted to join the same school and resumed duty.

Despite the adverse consequences of a “dies non” declaration, including its effect on pension, the authority directly declared the 368-day period as “dies non” without conducting a departmental inquiry or affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Applying the rule in Battilal, the Court treated the order as a major penalty that could not lawfully be imposed without complying with the procedural safeguards under the CCA Rules, 1966.

The State’s objection concerning the earlier representation did not prevent the Court from examining the legality of the impugned order.

The order was quashed, the writ petition was allowed, and consequential benefits were directed to follow.