Disciplinary order lacking reasoned consideration of explanation and declaring *dies non* without notice is unsustainable.

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor at Govt. Shrimant Madhavrao Scindia Degree College, was absent from duty for 60 days (26/09/2020 to 24/11/2020)

A charge-sheet was issued on 10/11/2021, to which the petitioner replied on 20/11/2021, citing family medical emergencies (wife's fracture) and claiming he had verbal permission to leave the headquarters

On 23/08/2023, the Respondent No. 2 passed an order imposing a minor penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect under Rule 10(4) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, and directed the period of absence to be treated as dies non

The petitioner challenged this order on grounds of lack of reasoned findings and violation of natural justice regarding the dies non declaration

1. Whether the disciplinary authority is legally obligated to record specific reasons for rejecting a delinquent's explanation in a minor penalty proceeding

2. Whether the administration can treat a period of absence as dies non without affording a specific opportunity of hearing to the employee

Rule 10(4) of the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966, regarding minor penalties

Recording reasons is a fundamental requirement of natural justice for quasi-judicial and administrative authorities [M/s Kranti Association Pvt. Ltd & Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan]

Fundamental Rule (FR) 17-A and the principle that since dies non causes a break in service affecting retiral benefits, it cannot be imposed without a prior show-cause notice [Anusuyya Bai v. State of MP and Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava v. State of MP]

The High Court found the impugned order legally "cryptic" because the disciplinary authority failed to address the specific reasons provided in the petitioner's explanation, merely stating it was "not found satisfactory"

In minor penalty cases where a regular departmental inquiry is bypassed, the authority bears a higher responsibility to meticulously consider and meet the delinquent's explanation

The court distinguished between "no work, no pay" and "dies non," noting that the latter is a severe administrative action resulting in the "wiping out" of service tenure for pensionary purposes

Since no separate notice was issued regarding the proposal to treat the absence as dies non, the order was held to be in violation of the principles of natural justice

The court quashed the impugned order dated 23/08/2023 and remitted the matter to the competent authority to pass a fresh, speaking order after considering the petitioner's explanation within 90 days