Orders Imposing Dies Non for Misconduct Must Be Issued by the Appointing Authority

The applicant, a Group ‘A’ Officer (Post Master General), was repatriated from deputation at the NCLT to the Department of Posts on 19.09.2019.

The respondents alleged the applicant failed to report for duty and remained unauthorizedly absent for 374 days (20.09.2019 to 27.09.2020).

Consequently, the respondents issued an order dated 27.12.2021 treating the said period as dies non under FR 17(1) and Rule 27 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, without a break in service, citing "lack of devotion to duty".

The applicant challenged this on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority and failure to follow disciplinary procedures.

1. Whether the Secretary, Department of Posts, was the "Competent Authority" under FR 17-A to pass an order of dies non for a Group ‘A’ officer.

2. Whether the respondents could treat the period as dies non based on alleged misconduct (lack of devotion to duty) without initiating formal disciplinary proceedings.

3. Whether the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind due to discrepancies in the dates of absence mentioned in the Show Cause Notice versus the final order.

Fundamental Rule (FR) 17-A, which defines the "Competent Authority" as the "Appointing Authority" for the purpose of declaring a period of unauthorized absence as a break in service.

Rule 27 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 regarding interruptions in service.

State of Punjab v. P. L. Singla (2008): held that if an employer treats unauthorized absence as misconduct, it must hold an inquiry and impose a punishment.

Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India (2012): establishing that unauthorized absence cannot be held as "willful" or "unbecoming of a government servant" without a departmental proceeding to prove such intent.

The Tribunal found that for a Group ‘A’ officer, the Appointing Authority is the President of India; thus, the Secretary of Posts lacked the statutory competence under FR 17-A (Explanation 2) to issue the dies non order.

The Tribunal reasoned that under the principles laid down in P. L. Singla and Krushnakant B. Parmar, the respondents were required to conduct a formal disciplinary inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, rather than summarily imposing dies non, as they labeled the absence as misconduct ("clear lack of devotion to duty").

The Tribunal noted a procedural lapse as the Show Cause Notice cited absence from 16.12.2019, while the final order unfairly extended it back to 20.09.2019, indicating a lack of application of mind.

The Tribunal allowed the O.A., quashed the impugned order dated 27.12.2021, and directed the respondents to treat the period from 20.09.2019 to 27.09.2020 as leave for which the applicant is eligible and to grant all consequential benefits within four weeks.