[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Satyanarayan Chaudhary vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13135
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 4685 of 2018
Satyanarayan Chaudhary S/o Shri Radheshyam Chaudhary Aged
About 39 Years R/o Village Kanwar, P. O. Kanwar, Tahsil Gurur,
District- Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Panchayat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dhamtari , District
Dhamtari , Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
3. Block Education Officer, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
4. Principal Governement Primary School Parastarai, Tahsil And
District Dhamtari , Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Adv.
For State : Mr. Vivek S. Ojha, P.L.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Mohd. Naqeeb, Adv. on behalf of
Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Adv.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
19.3.2026
1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-
10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to call for the entire records, of the case.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash the impugned order dated 25.11.2017
and direct the respondent authorities to grant
consequential relief including wages from the
date of transfer till the date of joining along with
a interest of 12%..
10.3 That, any appropriate writ, direction or order
may also kindly be passed in favour of the
petitioner, which this Hon'ble court deems fit in
the interest of Justice.
2) Facts of present case are that petitioner who was working on the
post of Teacher (Panhayat) at Govt. Primary School Parastarai
was accommodated to another school vide order dated 9.1.2014
(Annexure P/1) and as the petitioner failed to comply with the said
order, show-cause notice was served ; it was properly replied by
the petitioner and thereafter order dated 25.11.2017 (Annexure
P/20) was passed declaring the period of 609 days of absence as
'dies non'. Petitioner challenged the order dated 9.1.2014 by filing
WPS No. 1203 of 2014 which was dismissed as withdrawn and
petitioner was sent back to his original place of posting vide order
dated 30.4.2014 (Annexure P/4) but petitioner was not permitted
to join the services. Thereafter, he preferred WPS No. 1399 of
2015 which was disposed of reserving liberty in favor of petitioner
to move representation and respondent authorities were directed
to decide the same but no heed was paid to such representation,
therefore petitioner preferred contempt petition and finally,
petitioner was permitted to join the services on 26.8.2015.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Chief Executive
Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dhamtari has passed the order
impugned inflicting the penalty of 'dies non' which is a major
penalty without conducting departmental inquiry. He further
submits that order dated 25.11.2017 is bad in law and deserves to
be set aside.
4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective
respondents would oppose. They submit that petitioner failed to
comply with the order dated 9.1.2014 and remained absent from
services, therefore a show-cause notice was issued which was
replied by the petitioner and thereafter order impugned was
passed. They further submit 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 was accommodated to another school vide
order dated 9.1.2014 and ultimately, he was permitted to join the
services vide order dated 26.8.2015. It appears that respondent
No. 2 has passed the order dated 25.11.2017 against petitioner
declaring the period of 609 days of absence as 'dies non' after
receipt of reply to the show-cause notice issued against him.
7) 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 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."
8) 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
1. 2005 (3) MPHT 32 (DB)
the order and declared the period of absence as dies non without
affording the opportunity of hearing.
9) 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 order dated 25.11.2017 (Annexure P/20) is not
sustainable in the eyes of the law and is hereby quashed.
Consequently, the instant petition is hereby allowed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Ajinkya
