1 2026:CGHC:14515 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4656 of 2018  Loknath Baghel @ Lucky S/o S/o Late Damrudhar Aged About 27 Years R/o Baniyagaon, Bramhanpara, Police Station- Bhanpuri, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Commissioner, Jagdalpur, Bastar Division, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3. The Collector (Finance Branch), Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Addl. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 27.3.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 18.6.2018 and 5.1.2018 (Annexure P/1 & P/2) 2 10.2 That, any other relief/ order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 2) Facts of present case are that petitioner who was working on the post of Assistant Grade – II at Local Election Office, Jagdalpur was arrested in connection with Crime No. 61/2017 for commission of offence punishable u/s 376, 493 and 506 of IPC. Subsequently, he was acquitted by learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Bastar place at Jagdalpur vide judgment dated 24.11.2017. Petitioner was served with a show-cause notice which was duly replied and thereafter, Collector, Jagdalpaur vide order dated 5.1.2018 inflicted penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect and at the same time, declared the period of absence from 31.5.2017 to 24.11.2017 as ‘dies non’. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred departmental appeal before Commissioner, Bastar Division which was dismissed vide order dated 18.6.2018. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was acquitted by learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Bastar place at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No. 56/2017 vide judgment dated 24.11.2017 whereas Collector, Jagdalpur has passed the order impugned inflicting the penalty of ‘dies non’ which is a major penalty without conducting departmental inquiry. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava 3 Versus State of M.P. and Others1. He further submits that orders dated 5.1.2018 and 18.6.2018 are bad in law and deserve to be quashed. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioner remained absent from services for considerable period, therefore a show-cause notice was issued which was replied by the petitioner and thereafter order impugned was passed. He further submits that this petition deserves to be dismissed as sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioner before passing the order impugned. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 6) Evidently, petitioner remained absent from services as he was in judicial custody for period of almost 6 months. A show-cause notice was issued on 6.12.2017, which was replied by the petitioner and thereafter, disciplinary authority inflicted penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect. However, Collector, Jagdalpur also declared the period of absence as ‘dies- non’ and appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. 7) From the facts discussed above, it is quite clear that no departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner according to the provisions of Rule 14 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 prior to inflicting 1. 2007 (3) MPHT 362 4 the penalty of declaring the period of absence as ‘dies non’ which is a major penalty. 8) The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava (supra) held that when the authority directs that the period would be treated as “dies non”, such a period would not count for leave, salary, increment and pension. It is further held that the period which has been declared as “dies non” amounts to infliction of a major penalty and it could not be inflicted without holding the departmental inquiry. The relevant paras are reproduced herein-below:- 8. A Division Bench of this Court reported in Battilal vs. Union of India and others, 2005(3) MPHT 32 (DB) has held as under with regard to dies non: "The authority imposing the punishment can direct how the period when the employee was out of service shall be treated. When the Authority directs that the period will be treated 'dies non', it means that contingity of service is maintained, but the period treated 'dies non' will not count for leave, salary, increment and pension" 9. It is clear from the Judgment of this Court that dies non means continuity of service but the period will not be counted for leave, salary. increment and pension. It means that due to the order of the dies non the pension of the employee will be reduced. 10. The learned Single Judge of this Court held in the case of Dr. Anil Kumar Varma va. State of M. P. and others, reported in 2005(1) MPHT 24 (NOC) as under with regard to dies non: "2. Annexure A-1. dated 12-5-1997 is impugned order in this petition On going through this order, it is gathered that the period in between 8-8-1990 to 22-3-1993 has been treated as dies non. The order of dies non is stigmatic in nature for simple reason that the said period would not be counted in the entire service period of an employee 5 and that period would be counted as break in service and for that period salary is also not being paid to the delinquent employee. If a stigmatic order is being passed, holding a departmental enquiry is pre-supposed. Admittedly no departmental enquiry is being conducted in the present case and. therefore, the impugned order cannot be allowed remain stand and the same is hereby quashed". 11. Rule 10 under Part V of M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 1966 prescribes penalties which are as under: 10. Penalties.-- The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely: Minor penalties: (i) Censure; (ii) Withholding of his promotion; (iii) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of order; (iv) Withholding of increments of pay or stagnation allowances; (v) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not, the Government servant will earn increments of pay or the stagnation allowance, as the case may be, during the period, on such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the further increments of his pay or stagnation allowance; Note: The expression "reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay" shall also include reduction of pay from the stage of pay drawn by a Government servant of account of grant of stagnation allowance of any. (vi) Reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the Government servant to the time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service from which the Government servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade, post or service; (vii) compulsory retirement; (viii) removal from service which shall not be a 6 disqualification for future employment under the Government; (ix) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government; Explanation : The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this rule, namely: (i) withholding of increments of pay of a Government servant for his failure to pass any departmental examination in accordance with the rules or orders governing the service to which he belongs or post which he holds or the terms of his appointment; (ii) stoppage of a Government servant at the efficiency bar in the time scale of pay on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar; (iii) non-promotion of a Government servant, whether in a substantive or officiating capacity, after consideration of his case, to a service, grade or post for promotion to which he is eligible; (iv) reversion of a Government servant officiating in a higher service, grade or post to a lower service, grade or post, on the ground that he is considered to be unsuitable for such higher service, grade or post or on any administrative ground unconnected with his conduct; (v) reversion of a Government servant, appointed on probation to any other service, grade or post, to his permanent service, grade or post during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing such probation; (vi) replacement of the services of a Government servant, whose services had been borrowed from the Union Government or any other State Government, or an authority under the control of any Government, at the disposal of the authority from which the service of such Government servant had been borrowed; (vii) compulsory retirement of a Government servant in accordance with the provisions relating to his superannuation or retirement; (viii) termination of services: (a) of a Government servant appointed on probation, during or at the end of the period of his 7 probation, in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing such probation; or (b) of a temporary Government servant appointed until further orders on the ground that his services are no longer required; or (c) of a Government servant, employed under an agreement, in accordance with the terms of such agreement. 12. It is clear from the aforesaid Rule 10 that major penalty includes reduction of lower time of scale of pay. In the case of dies non when the pension of an employee will be affected then certainly in my opinion it would amount to major penalty and for that purpose as per the provision of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 a regular departmental enquiry is necessary and since in the present case no regular departmental enquiry is being conducted. Hence, the order of dies non is bad in law. 13. Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order, Annexure P-1, dated 8-1-2004 is hereby quashed. It is further clarified that the respondents are free to conduct regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner. 9) From a perusal of the law laid down in the matter of Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava (supra), it appears that to declare the period of absence from duty of a public servant as dies non is punitive in nature and cannot be passed without proceeding departmentally in view of the procedure laid down under the provisions of the CCA Rules, 1966. In the case at hand, the authority concerned straightway passed the order and declared the period of absence as dies non without affording the opportunity of hearing. 10) Taking into consideration the law laid down by the High Court of M.P. in the matter of Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava (supra), and 8 the facts of the present case, the orders dated 5.1.2018 and 18.6.2018 are not sustainable in the eyes of the law and are hereby quashed. Consequently, the instant petition is hereby allowed. It is further clarified that the respondents are free to conduct regular departmental inquiry against the petitioner. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.03.30 14:15:29 +0530