1 2025:CGHC:55701 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8238 of 2023 Yamini Verma D/o Milan Singh Aged About 35 Years Working As Training Officer (Workshop Calculation And Science/ Engineering Drawing In Short Wcs/ Ed) At Government I.T.I. Saddu Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indravati Bhawan, 1st Floor, D-Block Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Principal Industrial Training Institute (I.T.I.) Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 14.11.2025 1. The present petition has been filed with the following relief(s) :- “A. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire record in respect of the issuance of the impugned orders issued by the respondents. B. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.18 13:35:45 +0530 2 08.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent no. 1, order dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure P/2) issued by the respondent no. 2 and also set aside office order dated 20-09- 2023 (annexure P/3) issued by the respondent No 03 and directed to refund the entire amount of recovery if it is recovered from the salary. C. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to further direct the respondent authority to grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioner with increment and also grant salary of 193 days treating the same as sanctioned leave and also direct to pay the full salary of the month of July 2021 till January 2022 and also direct to pay the increment from July 2022 and July 2023 with interest as well as pay the arrears of salary for which the petitioner is legally entitled. D. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is presently working as a Training Officer (Workshop Calculation and Science/Engineering Drawing – WCS/ED) at Government I.T.I., Raipur. She was initially appointed on 14.01.2013 and joined service on 23.01.2013, successfully completing her probation period on 22.01.2015, after which she was declared permanent. While working at I.T.I. Raipur, she was transferred to I.T.I. Bilha vide order dated 06.04.2021. However, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, she was directed to perform Covid duty at Railway 3 Station, Raipur from April 2021 to 19.07.2021. Owing to continuous Covid duty, she fell ill and remained on medical leave from 20.07.2021 to 29.09.2021, for which she duly submitted Form-3 under the Leave Rules, 2010. Despite working till 19.07.2021, her salary for July 2021 was not paid. During her medical leave, the Principal, I.T.I. Raipur relieved her on 16.08.2021 for joining at I.T.I. Bilha. She became medically fit on 27.09.2021 and thereafter remained on earned leave till 27.01.2022. Subsequently, the earlier transfer order was cancelled on 27.01.2022, and she re-joined at I.T.I. Raipur on 29.01.2022 with medical certificates and relevant leave documents. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted repeated representations seeking sanction of her medical and earned leave for the period 20.07.2021 to 27.01.2022 totalling 193 days. The Principal, I.T.I. Raipur forwarded her leave details and service book entries to the competent authority vide memo dated 03.10.2022. However, without deciding her leave applications and without granting any opportunity of hearing, respondent No. 1 issued the impugned order dated 08.06.2023, after more than one year and six months treating the entire period of 193 days as dies non in complete violation of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010. On the basis of the said order, respondent No. 2 communicated the same to respondent No. 3, who thereafter issued an order dated 20.09.2023 directing recovery of salary and increments 4 already paid to the petitioner. The action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and illegal, particularly when the petitioner’s leave was never rejected, her joining was accepted, no disciplinary proceedings or show-cause notice were ever issued, and the absence was not wilful. It is settled law that an order of dies non, having adverse civil consequences, cannot be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. The impugned orders further result in withholding her annual increment due in July 2023 and seek recovery of earlier increments, amounting to imposition of a penalty without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.06.2023, communication dated 15.06.2023 and office order dated 20.09.2023 are arbitrary, contrary to law and policy, violative of principles of natural justice and hence liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders declaring the period of absence as dies non and directing recovery of salary are wholly unsustainable in law, as such actions amount to imposition of a major penalty and cannot be passed unless the petitioner is subjected to a regular departmental enquiry as mandated under Rule 24(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 read with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. It 5 is contended that the impugned orders have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, despite the fact that the consequences of an order of dies non are serious in nature, including withholding of salary, denial of increments, and possible reduction in pensionary benefits. It is submitted that declaring a period as dies non is treated in law as a major penalty and therefore cannot be imposed without following the principles of natural justice and without conducting a regular departmental enquiry. 5. It is further urged that no inquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the authorities to ascertain whether the petitioner’s absence was wilful or whether the same was bona fide, particularly when the petitioner had continuously submitted medical certificates and leave applications and had also performed Covid-19 duty during the peak of the pandemic. The entire factual background demonstrating that the petitioner fell ill immediately after performing Covid duty from April 2021 to 19.07.2021 has been ignored by the respondents while treating her medical and earned leave period as dies non. It is contended that the absence of the petitioner was completely bona fide, duly supported by medical certificates issued by competent Government medical authorities, yet the same has been arbitrarily rejected without any consideration. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 08.06.2023 has been passed after an unexplained and 6 unreasonable delay of more than one year and six months, solely with an intent to harass the petitioner and deprive her of her legitimate salary and service benefits. Learned counsel submits that Fundamental Rule 17 relating to dies non is not applicable to the petitioner’s case in view of the factual matrix, as no finding has been recorded by any authority that the petitioner’s absence was willful. In the absence of such finding, the leave period could not have been declared as dies non. The respondents were required to hold a regular enquiry, verify the medical certificates, and provide adequate opportunity of hearing before arriving at any adverse conclusion, but no such procedure has been followed. 6. It is argued that the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by respondent No. 3 directing recovery of salary and withholding of increments is without jurisdiction, as respondent No. 3 is not the appointing authority of the petitioner and, in any event, such recovery amounts to penalty under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1966, which cannot be imposed without a duly conducted departmental enquiry or issuance of show-cause notice/charge-sheet. Thus, the impugned actions of the respondents are illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of natural justice, and contrary to the settled principles of service law, and therefore liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and 7 submits that the petitioner is holding the substantive post of Training Officer (WCS/ED) at Government I.T.I., Saddu, Raipur, and her services were transferred to Government I.T.I., Belha, District Bilaspur vide order dated 06.04.2021. However, since she was deployed on Covid-19 duty, she could not be relieved immediately. After issuance of the transfer order, the petitioner submitted several applications seeking medical leave—dated 20.07.2021, 30.07.2021, 14.08.2021, 27.08.2021 and 11.09.2021. It is contended that vide letter dated 22.07.2021 (Annexure R/1), the petitioner was directed to appear with Medical Form-IV, and she was also informed that withdrawal of salary for July 2021 would be considered after sanction of medical leave; however, she failed to submit Form-IV regarding fitness. 8. It is submitted that despite issuance of relieving order on 16.08.2021, the petitioner did not join at I.T.I. Belha and remained unauthorisedly absent, continuing to submit Form-III even after her relieving. Later, the transfer order was cancelled by order dated 27.01.2022, and she rejoined at I.T.I. Raipur on 29.01.2022. Thereafter, she submitted an application on 30.01.2022 seeking sanction of medical and earned leave for the period 20.07.2021 to 28.01.2022, which was duly forwarded to the competent authority. Since the petitioner had remained on leave for a total of 193 days, the matter was referred to respondent No. 2 for appropriate decision. 8 9. Learned State counsel submits that after examining the entire record and the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010, respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 08.06.2023 treating the period 20.07.2021 to 27.01.2022 as non-working days (dies-non). It is pointed out that under Rules 13 and 17 of the Leave Rules, timely submission of leave applications, medical certificates, and fitness certificates is mandatory, whereas the petitioner failed to comply with these requirements, particularly the submission of Form-IV within the prescribed time. On the basis of the said order, respondent No. 3 initiated recovery of excess payment of increment dated 01.07.2022 and, after preparing a calculation sheet, issued order dated 20.09.2023 (Annexure P/3) for recovery of Rs.30,801/- from the petitioner. 10. It is contended that the impugned actions of the answering respondents are strictly in accordance with the Leave Rules, 2010, and no illegality or infirmity exists in the orders passed. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of substance and liable to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with the writ petition. 12. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and upon a careful scrutiny of the material placed on record, this Court finds substantial infirmities in the impugned actions taken by the respondents. 9 13. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 08.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 1, as well as the subsequent order dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure P/2) issued by respondent No. 2, it is evident that neither of these orders discloses the specific period which has been treated as ‘dies non’. It further appears that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of these adverse orders. No reasons have been assigned by the authorities concerned to justify the declaration of the said period as ‘dies non’. 14. An administrative or disciplinary order that entails civil or pecuniary consequences such as stoppage of salary, loss of service benefits, or denial of continuity must necessarily satisfy the foundational requirements of recording reasons and following the principles of natural justice. The impugned orders, however, do not reflect any such compliance. In absence of even the disclosure of the relevant period or the basis of the alleged misconduct, the orders dated 08.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) and 15.06.2023 (Annexure P/2) cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 15. Moreover, the consequential office order dated 20.09.2023 (Annexure P/3) issued by respondent No. 3, directing recovery of an amount of Rs.30,801/-, also cannot stand on its own, as it is founded entirely upon the unsustainable impugned orders. Since the primary orders themselves are vitiated due to lack of reasons, absence of opportunity, non-consideration of the petitioner’s 10 explanations and medical documents, and violation of the basic tenets of natural justice, the consequential recovery order (Annexure P/3) is equally liable to be quashed. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.06.2023 (Annexure P/1), the order dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure P/2), and the consequential recovery order/office order dated 20.09.2023 (Annexure P/3), are hereby quashed and set aside. 17. It is made abundantly clear that this Court has not examined or adjudicated upon the merits of the allegations, nor has it recorded any finding as to whether the petitioner’s absence was willful or otherwise. The present judgment is confined only to the grounds that the impugned orders do not disclose the period of ‘dies non’, do not assign any reasons, and have been passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondents, however, shall be at liberty to initiate and conclude fresh proceedings in accordance with law, if they deem it necessary. Any such action shall be undertaken only after giving the petitioner due opportunity of hearing and upon due consideration of all relevant documents. 18. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh