The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that declaring a public servant’s period of absence as 'dies non' constitutes a major penalty under service law, requiring strict compliance with procedural safeguards under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. This ruling reinforces the principle that administrative actions affecting service benefits must follow due process.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Satyanarayan Chaudhary, was employed as a Teacher (Panchayat) at the Government Primary School Parastarai in Dhamtari district. On 09.01.2014, he was ordered to transfer to another school. He did not comply with this order, leading to a show-cause notice being issued. He submitted a reply, but no departmental inquiry was conducted. On 25.11.2017, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dhamtari, passed an order declaring 609 days of his absence as 'dies non', thereby excluding that period from reckoning for leave, salary, increment, and pension.
Key Facts
- Petitioner was posted at Government Primary School Parastarai as of 09.01.2014
- Transfer order dated 09.01.2014 (Annexure P/1) directed him to a new posting
- Petitioner did not report to the new posting and remained at his original station
- Show-cause notice was issued and replied to by the petitioner
- No departmental inquiry was initiated or conducted
- Order dated 25.11.2017 (Annexure P/20) declared 609 days as 'dies non'
- Petitioner had previously filed WPS No. 1203 of 2014 challenging the transfer order, which was withdrawn
- On 30.04.2014, he was directed to return to his original posting (Annexure P/4)
- Despite this, he was not permitted to resume duties until 26.08.2015
- WPS No. 1399 of 2015 was disposed of with liberty to file a representation, which remained unaddressed
- A contempt petition was filed, leading to his eventual reinstatement on 26.08.2015
Procedural History
- 09.01.2014: Transfer order issued
- Before 25.11.2017: Show-cause notice issued and replied to
- 25.11.2017: Impugned order declaring 609 days as 'dies non' passed
- 26.08.2015: Petitioner permitted to resume duties after litigation
- 12.01.2014: WPS No. 1203 of 2014 filed challenging transfer order
- 30.04.2014: WPS No. 1203 of 2014 withdrawn; petitioner directed to return to original posting
- 2015: WPS No. 1399 of 2015 filed seeking regularization and back wages
- 2015: WPS No. 1399 of 2015 disposed of with liberty to file representation
- 2016 - 2017: Representations submitted but ignored
- 2017: Contempt petition filed
- 26.08.2015: Petitioner reinstated
- 2018: WPS No. 4685 of 2018 filed before Chhattisgarh High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 25.11.2017 declaring 609 days as 'dies non', and consequential relief including payment of wages for the period of absence, interest at 12% per annum, and restoration of service benefits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether declaring a period of absence as 'dies non' without conducting a departmental inquiry constitutes a major penalty under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, and whether such an order is legally sustainable without adherence to procedural fairness.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the order dated 25.11.2017 imposing 'dies non' for 609 days was punitive in nature, effectively depriving the petitioner of salary, increment, and pension benefits. He relied on Battilal v. Union of India to contend that such an order amounts to a major penalty under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1966, and can only be imposed after a formal departmental inquiry with full opportunity of hearing. He emphasized that no inquiry was held, no charges were framed, and no defense was recorded.
For the Respondent
The State and other respondents contended that the petitioner wilfully disobeyed the transfer order and remained absent without sanction. They argued that the show-cause notice was issued and replied to, thereby affording sufficient opportunity. They submitted that 'dies non' was merely an administrative clarification of service status and not a penalty, and that the order was justified under the authority to manage public service efficiency.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of 'dies non' and its legal consequences. It noted that the term signifies that the period, while not erasing continuity of service, is excluded from reckoning for leave, salary, increment, and pension. The Court cited Battilal v. Union of India from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which held that such a declaration is not a neutral administrative act but a punitive measure with serious financial and career implications.
"When the Authority directs that the period will be treated 'dies-non', it means that continuity of service is maintained, but the period treated as 'dies-non' will not count for leave, salary, increment and pension. In fact, F.R. 54 (1) casts such a duty on the authority."
The Court emphasized that the imposition of a major penalty under the CCA Rules, 1966, requires strict compliance with the procedure laid down in Rules 14 to 18, including framing of charges, issue of a charge sheet, opportunity to defend, and recording of findings. The absence of any such procedure rendered the order legally infirm.
The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that a reply to a show-cause notice equated to a full departmental inquiry. It held that a reply, however detailed, cannot substitute for a formal inquiry with cross-examination, evidence recording, and reasoned order. The Court further observed that the punitive effect of 'dies non' on pension and increment rights cannot be ignored, and such consequences demand procedural due process.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court quashed the order dated 25.11.2017 declaring 609 days as 'dies non'. The petitioner is entitled to have the said period counted as regular service for all purposes, including leave, increment, and pension. The respondents are directed to recalculate and release all arrears of salary and allowances for the period from 09.01.2014 to 26.08.2015, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of each default until actual payment. The order shall be complied with within six weeks.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Dies Non Is a Major Penalty, Not an Administrative Formality
- Practitioners must now treat any order declaring 'dies non' as a major penalty under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1966
- Such orders cannot be passed without a formal departmental inquiry, even if the employee was absent without leave
- The mere issuance of a show-cause notice and receipt of a reply is insufficient to satisfy procedural requirements
Service Benefits Cannot Be Withheld Without Due Process
- Pension, increment, and leave entitlements are statutory rights under service rules
- Administrative convenience cannot override the right to fair hearing
- Courts will intervene where service benefits are curtailed without adherence to CCA Rules
Precedent from Other High Courts Is Binding
-
The Battilal judgment from the Madhya Pradesh High Court is directly applicable and binding on this Court
-
Other High Courts have consistently held that 'dies non' is punitive
-
Service authorities must now align their practices with this jurisprudence
-
Always initiate departmental proceedings before imposing 'dies non' for any period exceeding 30 days
-
Maintain complete records of inquiry proceedings, including charge sheets, defense statements, and inquiry officer reports
-
Avoid using 'dies non' as a shortcut to penalize absence; use suspension or minor penalties where appropriate
