Unauthorized absence from a disciplined force without sanctioned leave precludes regularization of service under Rule 27.

The Petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) on 29.11.1995

Within fifteen days of joining, on 19.12.1995, he tendered his resignation and immediately proceeded to pursue post-graduate medical studies without waiting for the resignation’s formal acceptance

Between 1998 and 1999, he also joined the U.P. Government as a Medical Officer

The ITBP declared him an absconder on 24.09.1998

After rejoining ITBP on 09.09.1999, the period of absence (19.12.1995 to 08.09.1999) was treated as “dies-non” via order dated 06.12.2004

Following a direction from the High Court of Jammu Kashmir in 2022 to reconsider the case under pension rules, the Respondents reaffirmed the dies-non status via orders dated 29.03.2023 and 18.11.2024, citing unauthorized absence and dual employment

1. Whether the Respondents acted arbitrarily or illegally in refusing to regularize the period of unauthorized absence as qualifying service under Rule 27 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

2. Whether the Petitioner’s conduct of absenting himself following a resignation letter, but prior to its acceptance, is legally justifiable

3. Whether the treatment of the absence period as dies-non constitutes double jeopardy in light of a prior penalty of reprimand

Rule 27 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which grants the competent authority discretionary power to commute unauthorized absence into leave to preserve qualifying service, but does not create an indefeasible right for the employee

The established principle of service jurisprudence that a resignation only becomes effective upon formal acceptance by the competent authority

The doctrine of Article 14 of the Constitution was applied, establishing that parity cannot be claimed without proving complete identity of facts and that negative equality is not recognized under the law

The Court also distinguished “dies-non” as a service consequence of non-performance of duty rather than a secondary penal punishment

The Court reasoned that mere submission of a resignation does not sever the employer-employee relationship; thus, the Petitioner’s four-year absence was unauthorized and constituted serious misconduct, especially within a disciplined uniformed force

Under Rule 27, regularization is discretionary; the Respondents’ refusal was deemed justified as the Petitioner joined another government service without permission and was declared an absconder

Regarding the plea of parity with other doctors, the Court held that the Petitioner failed to provide material evidence of identical circumstances, noting that Article 14 does not mandate the extension of a mistaken benefit

The Court further clarified that dies-non is a regulatory entry for periods where no duty was performed; therefore, it does not amount to double jeopardy despite the prior reprimand

Finally, the challenge to the 2004 reprimand was dismissed as being hit by terminal laches

The Court concluded that the Petitioner had no right to retrospective regularization of a four-year unauthorized absence, particularly given his dual employment during that period

No interference was warranted as the impugned orders were neither perverse nor disproportionate. The petition was dismissed