1 2025:CGHC:16225 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6148 of 2018 Kalyan Singh Patel S/o Shri Lalman Patel Aged About 61 Years Posted As Secretary, Gram Panchayat , Bhikampura, Block- Sarangarh, District Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, District Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Sarangarh, District Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. H. S. Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Topi Lal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07/04/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the Government of Chhattisgarh on 01.06.2018 & 06.07.2018 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 (Annexure P/1) declaring the period of absence from May, 2017 to December, 2017 as 'dies non'. 2. Brief fact of the present case are that while working as Secretary, the petitioner was transferred from Gram Panchayat Bhikhampura to Village Kanakbira on 01.06.2017. Though he submitted his joining at the new place of posting, but the concerned Sarpanch and Secretary of that Gram Panchayat did not hand over the charge to him. Subsequently, effect and operation of his transfer order dated 01.06.2017 was stayed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, and thereafter, same was cancelled by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raigarh vide order dated 12.07.2017, and he was directed to continue at Gram Panchayat Bhikhampura. In compliance, he submitted his joining before the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhikhampura on 21.07.2017. However, even then, he was not handed over the charge. Further, the petitioner was not paid his salary for the period from May 2017 to December 2017. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court, wherein directions were issued to the respondent authorities. Despite such directions, no action was taken, and the said period was arbitrarily declared as dies non by the impugned orders. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the same having adverse consequences like withholding of salary, reduction of pension, etc. It could not have been passed without following the basic principles of natural justice. He has placed reliance in the matter of Smt. Mrudula Rishi v. State of Chhattisgarh [WP/101/2006, decided on 30.10.2013] in support of his argument. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the respondents have shown sympathy on the petitioner by not imposing any major penalty against him, even though he remained absent from him duties without giving any Information to the superior officers. 5. The matter to be considered by this Court is- whether in the given facts situation the impugned order could have been passed without holding a regular enquiry or without adhering to the principles of natural justice? 6. Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 (for short "the Rules, particularly Rule 24 thereof makes provision regarding absence after expiry of leave. 7. Sub-rule (1) Rule 24 of the Rules, 1977 provides that unless the authority competent to grant leave extends the leave, Government who remains absent after the end of leave is entitled to no leave salary for the period of such absence and that period shall be debited against his leave account as though it were half pay leave to the extent such leave is due, the period in excess of such leave due being treated as extraordinary leave. Sub-rule (2) provides that wilful absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action. 8. In the case in hand, petitioner was transferred gram panchayat Bhikhampura to gram panchayat Kanakbira and he challenged his transfer order by filing WPS No.2632/2017 and an interim order was passed in his favour vide order dated 22.06.2017 by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court (Annexure P/2); in the meanwhile, the additional 4 charge of gram panchayat Bhikhampura was given to one Lalaram maitri, Secretary; after cancellation of his transfer order dated 01.06.2017, he was again directed to join at his original place of posting i.e. gram panchayat Bhikhampura, but he was not provided charge of Secretary by the Sarpanch and Secretary and he was not paid the salary between the May to December, 2017; without proceeding departmentally in view of the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short "the Rules, 1966"), the respondents have straightaway passed the impugned order declaring the absence of the petitioner as 'dies non'. 9. In the opinion of this Court, an order adverse to the Government servant, who has remained willfully absent after expiry of leave, cannot be passed without initiating any disciplinary proceeding, as provided under Rule 24 (2) of the Rules, 1977. While holding so this Court would take assistance of the law laid down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in All Hussian (Dr.) v. State of M.P. [1984 JLJ 67] and Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and othims [2007 (3) M.P.J. 525]. 10.In Battilal v. Union of India and Othims [2005 (3) MPHT 32 (DB)], the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held as under: "3...... 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. It provides that when a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired is reinstated as a result of appeal or review, the authority competent, to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order- 5 (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the government servant for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty." 11.Thus, the law is well settled that while the disciplinary authority is competent to direct the period of willful absence as dies non, as a measure of penalty, such order cannot be passed unless the concerned employee has been proceeded departmentally under the provisions of Rule 24 (2) of the Rules, 1977 read with the Rules, 1966. 12.For the foregoing, the impugned orders dated 01.06.2018 & 06.07.2018 (Annexure P/1) are hereby set aside. As an upshot, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim