1 2026:CGHC:16112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5324 of 2022 1 - Ashish Ramteke S/o Devji Ramteke Aged About 41 Years Presently Posted And Working As Assistant Food Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector (Food Branch) Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector (Food Branch) Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh 5 - Food Controller Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Abhishek Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08 .04.2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased set- aside/quash the impugned orders dated 20-05-2022 (Annexure P-1) and 03-07-2021 (Annexure P-2) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to adjust the period of absence as earned leave. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Food Inspector vide order dated 17.12.2007. It is contended that initially he joined the services in Sarguja, he was subsequently transferred to District Rajnandgaon. She would submit that the petitioner applied for medical leave from 2.8.2016 to 16.8.2016 in the prescribed format and again moved an application to extend the said leave from 17.8.2016 to 16.9.2016. During this period, the petitioner was transferred from Rajnandgaon to Balod. Another application for extension of leave from 17.9.2016 to 31.12.2016 was submitted along with supporting medical documents. She would submit that the office of the Collector, Food Branch Balod vide its communication dated 12.4.2018 apprised respondent No.2/ Director of the department to the effect that the petitioner was on medical leave for 152 days, and a balance of 183 days remained in his earned leave account. She would submit that the department/ respondent No.1 without conducting an inquiry or affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing declared the period of 152 days absence as dies-non under Rule 24(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Leave Rules, 2010. 3 Although a representation was made against this decision, it was rejected vide order dated 20.5.2022. She would submit that as the order impugned is a major penalty and no opportunity of hearing was afforded, both the orders are bad in law and may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner failed to establish the fact that he was on medical leave for 152 days and he willfully remained absent from his duties and therefore, the authority concerned rightly declared the period of 152 days as dies-non. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. Annexure-P/2 was passed by respondent No.1 on 3.7.2021 declaring the 152 days absence as dies-non. Subsequently, vide order dated 20.5.2022 (Annexure-P/1), respondent No.1 has rejected the representation made by the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned orders would make it clear that no departmental enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The issue involved in the present case is no more res integra. 6. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Battilal vs. Union of India and others1 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 1. 2005 (3) MPHT 32 (DB) 4 major penalty and it could not be inflicted without holding the departmental inquiry. The relevant para 3 is reproduced herein-below:- “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- (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.” 7. From a perusal of the law laid down in the matter of Battilal (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. 8. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the High Court of M.P. in the matter of Battilal (supra), and the facts of the present case, the orders dated 20.5.2022 (Annexure P/1) and 3/7/2021 are not sustainable in the eyes of the law and is hereby quashed. Consequently, the instant petition is hereby allowed. It is further 5 clarified that the respondents are free to conduct the regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi