THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.20488 of 2020
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The petitioner before this Court has filed the
present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated
22.03.2018
passed by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, treating the period with
effect from 18.12.2017 to 17.01.2018 as "dies-non". The
facts of the case reveal that the petitioner before this
Court who was serving on the post of Process Server
applied for extra ordinary leave first for a period of 40
days from 01.12.2016 to 09.01.2017 and for another
spell for a period of 43 days from 01.02.2017 to
15.03.2017. Thereafter, she again went on maternity
leave for 180 days from 12.06.2017 to 08.12.2017 and
reported to duty on 08.12.2017. She has again applied
for extra ordinary leave for 90 days from 18.12.2017 to
17.03.2018. But, as the same was rejected and she was
directed to join the duty, she has joined the duty on
17.01.2018. As the leave was not granted for a period of
31 days with effect from 18.12.2017 to 17.01.2018, the 2
disciplinary authority has passed an order treating the
period as dies-non.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that no
notice of any kind was issued to the petitioner seeking
explanation and it is the case of a lady who was on
maternity leave.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before
this Court that the dies-non, though it is not a penalty as
mentioned in the Telangana Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, it amounts to major
punishment, as it effects the increments and pension of a
Government servant and a show cause notice should
have been given before treating the period as dies-non.
Reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered in
the case of Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of
Maharashtra1 as well as the judgment delivered in the
case of L.R.Meena v. State of Madhya Pradesh and
others (W.P.No.14093 of 2016, dated 27.02.2017).
This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid
judgments and the fact remains that no opportunity of
any kind was given to the petitioner before passing the
impugned order.
1 (2014) 16 SCC 623 3
Resultantly, as the impugned order has been
passed in violation of principles natural justice and fair
play without seeking any explanation of any kind from
the petitioner, the writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order is set aside. However, the disciplinary
authority shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in
accordance with law.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
03.01.2022 vs
