Telangana High Court
Ms.Khairan vs The Registrar Administration And ... on 3 January, 2022
Author: Satish Chandra Sharma
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
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