Treating Unauthorized Absence as Dies Non is an Administrative Measure, Not Punishment precluding Disciplinary Action

The Appellant, appointed as a Group ‘D’ Helper in 1992, was unauthorizedly absent from duty from 28.09.2015 to 26.02.2016.

Initially, the Respondent issued a memorandum on 02.06.2016 declaring this period as dies non for all purposes except pensionary benefits.

Subsequently, the Respondent initiated formal disciplinary proceedings under Statute 13(9) of the Statutes of IIT Delhi via a charge sheet dated 16.08.2016.

Following an inquiry report dated 19.09.2017, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on 18.01.2018.

The Appellant’s statutory appeal was dismissed by the Board of Governors on 08.04.2019.

The Appellant challenged these orders via W.P.(C) 4161/2019, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 26.02.2026. The present intra-court appeal assails that dismissal.

1. Whether the imposition of a penalty of compulsory retirement after the period of absence was already declared as dies non constitutes double punishment or double jeopardy

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated due to non-observance of the principles of natural justice

3. Whether the penalty of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to the misconduct of unauthorized absence

Statute 13(9) of the Statutes of IIT Delhi, which enumerates specific penalties for misconduct, including compulsory retirement, but does not list dies non as a penalty.

Principle of "No Work No Pay" as an administrative accounting procedure rather than a penal measure.

The precedent established in State of Punjab v. Dr. P.L. Singla (2008) 8 SCC 469, which clarifies that unless unauthorized absence is specifically regularized by sanctioned leave, the employer retains the right to initiate disciplinary action for misconduct despite administrative accounting of the absence.

The Court rejected the "double jeopardy" argument, clarifying that dies non is an administrative treatment of absence intended to prevent a break in service and ensure accounting accuracy, rather than a punishment under the Statutes.

The Court reasoned that since dies non is not defined as a penalty in Statute 13(9), its prior application did not preclude formal disciplinary action.

Applying Dr. P.L. Singla, the Court noted that only the regularization/sanctioning of leave prevents disciplinary proceedings; here, the period was never regularized, only accounted for administratively.

Regarding natural justice, the Court found that the Appellant was provided with the inquiry report, given the opportunity to represent against the proposed penalty, and actively participated in the proceedings, satisfying the requirements of procedural fairness.

The Court found no grounds to interfere with the decision of the Single Judge, as the misconduct (prolonged unauthorized absence) warranted the major penalty of compulsory retirement under the service rules.

The Court directed the Respondent to release all eligible retirement benefits to the Appellant within two months. No order was made as to costs.