Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28015
1 WP-18131-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 4 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 18131 of 2017
VISHAL SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Sharma - learned counsel for petitioner.
Ms. Ekta Vyas - learned Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar - learned counsel for respondent No.2.
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):
"a) To quash the impugned order letter dated 13.10.2017 as contained
in Annexure P/1 and order dated 19.12.2019 as contained in Annexure
P/6.
b) The respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the period of
suspension from 7.5.2013 to 28.2.2015 for all purposes;
c) The respondents may kindly be directed to make the payment of
arrears of salary along with interest @ 12% per annum;
d) The respondents may kindly be directed to issue the final PPO in
favour of the petitioner;
e) The respondents may also kindly be directed to make the payments
of all retirement benefits i.e. pension, gratuity, leave encashment,
insurance etc along with interest @ 12% per annum;
f) To pass such other further order (s) deemed fit and proper in the
interest of justice."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28015
2 WP-18131-2017
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was holding
the post of Attender. During the relevant period, the petitioner was implicated in a
forged criminal case registered at Police Station Bahodapur, Gwalior, in Crime
No. 219/2013. He was arrested and remained in jail from 7.5.2013 to 13.5.2013.
In view of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order
dated 3.6.2013. During the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner attained
the age of superannuation on 25.2.2015 and due to the pendency of the said case,
only anticipatory pension was settled vide order dated 26.2.2015. Thereafter, the
trial Court, by judgment dated 3.8.2017, acquitted the petitioner. After his
acquittal, the petitioner immediately submitted a representation seeking revocation
of the suspension order and release of all post-retirement benefits. However, by
the impugned order dated 19.12.2019, the concerned authority has declared the
period from 7.5.2013 to 28.2.2015 as dies non. Thereafter, the pensionary and
other retiral benefits have been sanctioned to the petitioner. It is further submitted
that the impugned order dated 19.12.2019 (Annexure P/6) has been passed by
Respondent No. 2 without holding a regular departmental inquiry, although 'dies
non' is a major punishment. As per the procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of the
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966,
the punishment of 'dies non' cannot be imposed without conducting a regular
departmental inquiry. The respondents could not have imposed the major
punishment of 'dies non' on the petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well learned counsel for
respondent No.2 have supported the impugned order and opposed the prayed
made by the learned counsel for petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.2
submits that as per Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave)
Rules, 1977, Circular/Amendment dated 9.3.1977 and as there was no factual
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28015
3 WP-18131-2017
dispute, therefore, the Regular Departmental Enquiry is not required. Respondents
have rightly declared the period as dies non.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The issue with regard to the fact that any punishment of 'dies non' is a
major penalty and in cases of major penalty is no more res-integra, it is mandatory
to conduct a full-fledged enquiry and only after enquiry, any major punishment
can be imposed. It is also well settled that the order of 'dies non' is stigmatic in
nature because the entire service period of an employee would be counted as break
in service and therefore a full-fledged Regular Departmental Enquiry is
contemplated in the said situation and merely stating that since there was no
factual dispute, therefore, the regular departmental enquiry was not required,
cannot be accepted. As per the judgment passed in the matter of Dr. Nemi Kochar
Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in 2007 (III) MPJR 41 contended that the order
of 'dies non' can only be passed after holding an enquiry as contemplated under
Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966.
7. It is seen that after considering the earlier judgments of this Court in the
matters of Battilal vs. Union of India & Ors. 2005 (3) MPHT 32 and Dr. Anil
Kumar Varma vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 2005 (1) MPHT 24, in the case of Mahesh
Kumar Shrivastava vs. State of M.P. & Others 2007 (3) MPLJ 525 the Gwalior
Bench opined as under:-
"7. From the facts stated above, it is clear that no regular
departmental enquiry has been held against the petitioner
while passing the order of treating his absence of 240 days,
i.e., from 24-11-2002 to 21-7-2003 as dies non. Earlier, when
the salary of the petitioner for a certain period of 2003 was
not paid to him, he filed a Writ Petition before this Court and
this Court disposed of the petition of the petitioner with
directions to respondents that either the salary of the
petitioner be paid or reasons for non-payment be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28015
4 WP-18131-2017
communicated to the petitioner. Thereafter, a show-cause
notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a
detailed reply mentioning the facts that he was present and
working in the office. In support of his contentions, he
submitted various documents of his acts which he had done
during the aforesaid period and the same contentions have
been negatived on the basis of report submitted by the
General Manager, Industries by the authority in passing the
order of dies non.
8. A Division Bench of this Court reported in Batiilal v.
Union of India and Ors. 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 continuity 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 v. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Ors.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 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28015
5 WP-18131-2017
11. Rule 10 under Part V of M.P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control & 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
disqualification for future employment under the
Government;
(ix) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a
disqualification for future employment under the
Government;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28015
6 WP-18131-2017
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 probation, in accordance
with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders
governing such probation; or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28015
7 WP-18131-2017
(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 casedies 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.
8. Thus, the order dated 19.12.2019 (Annexure P/6) issued by
respondent/concerned authority is patently illegal and are totally without
jurisdiction.
9. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the very action of the
respondents is dehors the provisions of service jurisprudence. Such a harsh order
which is based on alleged mis-conduct is stigmatic in nature and cannot be passed
without holding a full-fledged regular Departmental Enquiry. The same has been
held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Dr. Nemi Kochar
(supra) which has been relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. In view of the above, order dated 19.12.2019 (Annexure P/6) cannot be
allowed to stand and same is hereby quashed. The Authorities are directed to give
all consequential benefits, such as issuance of revised PPO and GPO for pension
and other retiral benefits. The respondents are directed to pay the amount with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present petition i.e.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28015
8 WP-18131-2017
30.10.2017 till realization.
11. The respondents/concerned authorities shall comply with this order
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this
order.
12. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad
