1 CGHC010193542017 2026:CGHC:40500 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 942 of 2017 Shyam Lal Choudhary S/o Shri Chakravarti Choudhary, Aged About 61 Years Retired Assistant Lekha Parikshan Avam Kararopan Adhikari, Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, R/o Village Limgaon, Post Paikin, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5. Deputy Director, Panchayat, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, PL For Respondent No. 2 &3 : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board. SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.09.21 10:31:07 +0530 2 16/09/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.05.2016 passed by the Respondent No.1 Secretary Panchayat and Gramin Development, Department by which absent of the petitioner from duty 243 days has been declared as “dies non”. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was present in the office duty as he has conducted the meeting of Panch and Sarpach on 05.08.2006 and on 02.04.2008 and on various dates also. He would further submit that the petitioner was engaged in Election duty of 2005, as such the petitioner was involved in the office duty and the Respondent No.1 without giving opportunity him hearing the period has been declared as dies non, thus there is glaring violated the principle of natural justice and would pray for quashing of the order passed by the respondent No.1. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for respondent No. 2 and 3 would submit that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent for 414 days in the year 2006 and 365 days in the year 2008-08, after adjusting all the leaves credited in the account of the petitioner, no further leave was credited in his account, therefore, the period was declared as dies non by respondent No.1. The petitioner remained absent in the duty for a period of 779 days which is a major misconduct but the respondents have taken lenient view and absent of the petitioner in the work of 243 days has been declared as dies non. They would further submit that the action of the respondents in declaring the period as dies non does not suffers from perversity, illegality and does not warrant interference by this Court. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Considering the fact that the State of Chhattisgarh has exercised its power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and has framed Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 (hereinafter after referred to Rule). Rule 24 is extract below:- 24. Absence after expiry of leave -(1) Unless the authority competent to grant leave extends the leave, Government servant who remains absent after the end of leave, the period of such absence not covered by grant of leave shall have to be treated as ‘dies non’ for all purpose including leave. He will not be entitled to any 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. (2) Willful absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action. 6. This Rule provides that after adjusting all the leaves, no leave is credited in the account of the Government Servant, excess remaining period will be treated as “dies non”. The respondents in exercise power conferred under Rule 24 of the Rule 2010 has passed the order. Even the sub Rule 2 of Rule 24 is also provide for taking disciplinary action against the Government Servant. In the present case, the respondents has exercise the power conferred to it and has passed the impugned order, after adjusting all the leaves credited in the account of the petitioner, as such the order passed by the respondents does not suffers from perversity, illegality which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition sane merit is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh