Judgment and Order : 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the memorandum No. F.4(IS-JRN-S-120)SE/E(Trg.)/2014 dated 05.08.2015 [Annexure P/9 to the writ petition] and the memorandum No. F.4(IS-JRN-S-120)SE/E(Trg.)/2014/3758(2) dated 18.09.2015 [Annexure P/10 to the writ petition] has approached this court. By the memorandum dated 03.02.2015, the period of absence of the petitioner with effect from 12.03.2014 to 26.09.2014 has been treated as dies non for all purposes (i.e. pension, leave, increment etc.). However, it has been clearly exposited in the said memorandum dated 05.08.2015 that declaration of dies non will however not entail forfeiture of the past service of the petitioner prior to 12.03.2014. By the subsequent memorandum dated 18.09.2015, the representation that was filed by the petitioner on 12.02.2015 [Annexure-8 to the writ petition] has been rejected and thus the order of dies non was maintained by the respondents. 3. The essential facts for purpose of appreciating the challenge is required to be noted at the outset. The petitioner while serving as the Assistant Teacher in Beni Madhab Vidyapith S.B. School, he received the notification dated 04.03.2014 by which he was transferred to Suknacherra S.B. School under Inspectorate of Schools, Kanchanpur, TTAADC. He was released officially with effect from 15.03.2014. Since the petitioner has claimed to have been suffering from psychiatric ailment and he was under Ayurvedic treatment for recuperating from the said illness, he had applied for ‘commuted leave’ for 4(four) weeks with effect from 12.03.2014 on medical ground. The petitioner on all those grounds urged the respondents to cancel or modify the transfer order dated 10.02.2014 on compassionate medical ground. Since the petitioner had continued to suffer from the illness he was compelled to extend the leave. 4. By the memorandum No.F.1(7-1)-SE/E(NG)/2011(L-II) (E) dated 27.09.2014, the said transfer order dated 04.03.2014 was modified. The petitioner on the very day produced the fitness certificate for joining in the modified place of posting at Mekhlipara DDSB School, Jirania. The petitioner was also asked by the respondents to appear before the standing medical board of Agartala Government Medical College & G.B.P. Hospital on any working day. The petitioner appeared before the medical board but there was no examination. The petitioner was also asked by the respondents to appear before the standing medical board of Agartala Government Medical College & G.B.P. Hospital on any working day. The petitioner appeared before the medical board but there was no examination. Even prescription of the petitioner carried with him was not examined by the said medical board and he left the standing medical board without any further query or examination. On 03.02.2015, the petitioner was given a show-cause notice under memorandum No. F.4(IS-JRN-S-120)SE/E(Trg.)/2014/954 dated 03.02.2015. The petitioner filed the reply immediately and explained why he was absent during the period from 12.03.2014 to 26.09.2014. According to the petitioner, when someone was ill and had applied for the leave on the ground of illness, unless overwhelming evidence appears against the very finding of the issuing authority of the illness certificate, those are to be generally accepted. But the petitioner was sent to the medical board for review whether the period of absence from 12.03.2014 to 26.09.2014 was required for his treatment or not. The standing medical board in clear terms has stated that the said absence cannot be justified for illness. The respondents in their counter-affidavit has asserted that : “It is observed from the report of the Standing Medical Board that Sri Santosh Debnath, G/T could not produce any treatment documents. Hence it may be stated that as Sri Debnath, G/T was suffering from Lumber Spondalytis, he should have been prescribed medication along with investigation such as X-ray/CT Scan/MRI to ascertain the diagnosis by the concerned doctor. But there is no such document in the file received by the Directorate.” Further, in the reply, it has been asserted that the petitioner’s reply was unconvincing. Therefore, the Director of School Education has issued the impugned order directing to treat the said period of absence from 12.03.2014 to 26.09.2014 as dies non. 5. Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order of dies non since has been issued for all purposes (i.e. pension, leave, increment etc.), it would definitely prejudice the petitioner as it carries a punitive approach. Thus, without giving an effective opportunity of defence, the proceeding would turn into a proceeding tainted for not affording reasonable opportunity. Mere show-cause may not be adequate. Thus, without giving an effective opportunity of defence, the proceeding would turn into a proceeding tainted for not affording reasonable opportunity. Mere show-cause may not be adequate. Thus, it would be appreciated that before imposing an order treating a certain period of absence as dies non is not a fair action. Following FR 17A, for declaring dies non, an order shall be preceded by a disciplinary proceeding so that the employee concerned can get adequate opportunity of explaining absence. It is further to be observed that in the case in hand, as the petitioner did not accede to the allegation, the disciplinary authority should have instituted a disciplinary proceeding for inquiring into the allegation and thereafter, on affording every reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, should have passed the order of dies non. 6. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that a show-cause notice was issued by the memorandum dated 03.02.2015 [Annexure P/7 to the writ petition] and the petitioner has explained the reason for his absence. But nowhere in the said reply the petitioner has extended any explanation on medical ground. However, such plea cannot be entertained inasmuch as the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner submitted the illness certificate and fitness certificate for joining the modified place of posting and acting on those papers, the respondents had sent the petitioner to be examined by the Standing Medical Board, GBP Hospital. The petitioner has further alleged that the medical board did not examine his medical certificates at all. 7. Be that as it may, this court is of the opinion that it was incumbent on the respondents to start a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on unauthorized absence and thereafter to pass an appropriate order. As already stated, though dies non is not cataloged as the punishment under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 but for the very nature of the order of dies non, it appears that it carries the streak of punishment. The respondents cannot without disciplinary proceeding pass any order which is seriously prejudicial to the interest of an employee. The petitioner has been subjected to such arbitrariness inasmuch as he did not get any opportunity to safeguard him from the allegation. Thus, the impugned orders dated 05.08.2015 and 18.09.2015 are interfered with and set aside. The respondents cannot without disciplinary proceeding pass any order which is seriously prejudicial to the interest of an employee. The petitioner has been subjected to such arbitrariness inasmuch as he did not get any opportunity to safeguard him from the allegation. Thus, the impugned orders dated 05.08.2015 and 18.09.2015 are interfered with and set aside. But this court is not inclined to exonerate the petitioner from the allegation down the line. Regularization of absence by leave falls in the executive domain. 8. In this context, the respondents are permitted to take appropriate action if required against the petitioner but that action can only be taken after instituting a departmental proceeding after affording the petitioner reasonable opportunity for his defence. If within 3(three) months from today no disciplinary action as indicated above, is taken, the respondents shall regularize the absence of the petitioner by the credited leave or other leave. Having held so, this writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.