DETERMINATION OF UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCE AS ‘DIES-NON’ WITHOUT BREAK IN SERVICE DOES NOT MANDATE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

The Applicant, a Sorting Assistant in the Jaipur RMS Division, remained absent from duty for 25 days (21.01.2012 to 14.02.2012) without prior intimation or permission

Upon resuming duty on 15.02.2012, he submitted medical sickness and fitness certificates, claiming sudden illness

Respondent No. 4 issued a show-cause notice and subsequently passed an order on 26.06.2012 treating the period as "unauthorized absence" and "Dies-Non" under the Postal Manual Vol. III, without treating it as a break in service

After a previous round of litigation (OA No. 196/2016), the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 3) rejected his representation on 30.05.2016

The Applicant challenged these orders, seeking the regularization of his leave

1. Whether the period of absence without prior intimation can be treated as "Dies-Non" under the Postal Manual despite the submission of medical certificates

2. Whether an order of "Dies-Non" (without break in service) requires a full-fledged departmental inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

Rule 162 of the Postal Manual Vol. III, which mandates prior permission for leave and requires immediate intimation by the quickest means in cases of medical emergencies

Rule 62 of the Postal Manual Vol. III, which empowers the leave sanctioning authority to treat unauthorized absence as "Dies-Non" (not counting for service but not a break in service)

Rule 19(5) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, which stipulates that the production of a medical certificate does not confer an automatic right to leave

The precedent set by the CAT Jodhpur Bench in Devi Lal v. Union of India (OA No. 111/2016), which held that "Dies-Non" is an administrative action independent of disciplinary proceedings

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to comply with Rule 162 as he provided no intimation during the 25-day absence; the medical certificates were only produced ex-post facto on the date of resumption

The court noted discrepancies in the medical documents, such as the sickness certificates being stamped only on the date of fitness (15.02.2012) and the stated illness (Cervical Spondylitis) not matching the initial certificate's diagnosis

The Tribunal reasoned that since the impugned order specifically stated the period would not be treated as a "break in service," it did not constitute a major penalty. Therefore, the requirement for a formal inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules was not triggered

The action was characterized as a legitimate exercise of administrative discretion to enforce the principle of "No Work, No Pay" for unauthorized absence

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders dated 26.06.2012 and 30.05.2016. The Original Application was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the Applicant