JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms AS Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the memorandum under No.F.3(2)-LAB/ESTT/TRANS/2012/12245-48 dated 11.11.2016 (Annexure-P8 to the writ petition). By the said memorandum the period of absence of the petitioner from 17.10.2016 to 02.11.2016 has been treated as unauthorized and the said unauthorized absence of the petitioner for that period has been treated as dies non without break in service. It appears that this order has been passed under Rule 24 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1986. 2. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that for this purpose, no departmental proceeding was initiated by the respondents even though the effect of dies non would be forfeiture of the financial benefit. Such forfeiture of financial benefit cannot be ordered without drawing up a formal disciplinary proceeding. In support of his contention, Mr. Bhowmik has placed reliance on Tapan Majumder Vs. State of Tripura and Ors, reported in 2007 (3) GLT 434 whereby the Gauhati High Court had occasion to observe as follows: “9. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that before declaring the period of absence of appellant as 'Dies-non', a disciplinary proceeding has to be conducted in the facts and circumstances, more so, when the allegations of break in service are being refuted by the appellant. Therefore, the order-dated 21.1.1999 was to be passed only after resorting to proper course of disciplinary proceedings. Despite the fact that this aspect was not argued earlier before learned Single Judge of this Court, however, this legal aspect being vital on argument is being entertained by this Court at this stage, as such, the action of the Director of School Education for declaring the period from 16.3.1995 to 28.12.1995 as 'Dies-non' is taken as legally not sustainable.” 3. Ms Lodh, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents has submitted that she has the instruction that no disciplinary proceeding was drawn up before passing the impugned order dated 11.11.2016 (Anenxure-P8 to the writ petition). 4. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has further submitted that during that period the petitioner was under medical disability and he had filed a leave application for granting him commuted leave on medical ground. 4. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has further submitted that during that period the petitioner was under medical disability and he had filed a leave application for granting him commuted leave on medical ground. Without granting such leave, though the application was filed with the necessary medical certificate, the said order has been passed. 5. Having regard to the submission and the documents filed by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the way the impugned order has been passed cannot be sustained in law and accordingly the same is set aside. The respondents, however, shall be at liberty to take their own decision on the said period of absence but after drawing a disciplinary proceeding. However, it is advisable to the respondents that before such disciplinary proceeding is drawn up they should consider the application of the petitioner by which the petitioner has sought commuted leave on medical ground. Usually, when a government employee urges for granting the medical leave, it is incumbent upon the respondents to consider it with sufficient latitude and not to discard that application in a casual manner. 6. It is needless to say that on grant of the leave as indicated above, the petitioner shall be entitled to the salary for the entire period and that shall immediately be released. 7. In terms of the above, this writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Copy of this order be furnished to learned Addl. GA for onward transmission.