Declaring absence as 'dies non' is a major penalty requiring a formal departmental inquiry.

The petitioner, an Assistant Grade-II employee at the Local Election Office, Jagdalpur, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 61/2017 (offences under Sections 376, 493, and 506 of the IPC) and remained in judicial custody for approximately six months.

He was subsequently acquitted by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Bastar on 24.11.2017.

Following his acquittal, the Collector, Jagdalpur issued a show-cause notice and subsequently passed an order on 05.01.2018, imposing a penalty of stoppage of two increments (non-cumulative) and declaring his period of absence from 31.05.2017 to 24.11.2017 as ‘dies non’.

The petitioner’s departmental appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, on 18.06.2018.

The petitioner challenged these orders on the ground that 'dies non' constitutes a major penalty and was imposed without a formal departmental inquiry.

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

2. Whether the impugned orders are sustainable in the absence of a formal departmental inquiry as prescribed under Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

The court primarily applied Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which mandates a formal departmental inquiry before the imposition of a major penalty.

It relied on the precedent set by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and Others (2007), which established that 'dies non' is stigmatic and punitive because the period does not count for leave, salary, increment, or pension, thereby necessitating a full inquiry.

The court also referenced Battilal v. Union of India and others (2005) regarding the definition and consequences of 'dies non'.

The court reasoned that 'dies non' is not a mere administrative entry but a punitive measure that directly impacts an employee’s financial interests and service benefits, such as pension and increments.

Applying the principles from Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava, the court held that any order which results in the reduction of pension or loss of service benefits amounts to a major penalty.

In the present case, the disciplinary authority merely issued a show-cause notice and passed the order without conducting a regular departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1966.

The court found that bypassing the mandatory inquiry procedure denied the petitioner a sufficient opportunity of hearing, rendering the order of 'dies non' legally unsustainable.

The court held that declaring a period as 'dies non' is a major penalty that cannot be inflicted without a regular departmental inquiry.

The respondents were granted liberty to conduct a regular departmental inquiry against the petitioner if they so choose.