JUDGMENT : The petitioner joined as Rifleman(G.D.) in 7th Bn. Tripura State Rifles(TSR) in the year 1997 and while holding the post of Naik in 7th Bn. TSR attached to G.B.P. Outpost to perform the duty of Medical Assistant since 02.02.2010 as a normal course(not for undergoing treatment). The petitioner never communicated to his authority about continued treatment at G.B.P. Hospital and he communicated only after he remained on unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f. 04.02.2012. During his attachment with G.B.P. outpost he had not reported about his sickness neither to the In-charge, G.B.P. outpost nor he made any entry in the sick register on 01.02.2012 and submitted his application dt. nil accompanying illness certificate and other documents for sanction of 30 days commuted leave w.e.f. 01.02.2012 posted on 10.02.2012 from Agartala Head Post office which was received by 7th Bn. TSR on 17.02.2012 and had applied for leave from time to time followed by illness certificate. The nature of leave period which he applied from 02.02.2012 continuously for different kind of ailment is referred to in a tabular form ad infra: Sl. No. Nature of leave with period applied for Date of submission Name & Designation of illness certificate issuing M.O. Nature of illness, date of issue mentioning recommendation for absence from duty Whether leave sanctioned or not and no. & date of communication 1 30(thirty) days commuted leave 3 without mentioning period of leave applied. Nil Dr. J.B. Darlong, MO, AGMC& GBP Hospital Medicine Department, Agartala ‘Anxuity Nemesis’ issued 01.02.2012 for absence from duty for a period of 30(thirty) days w.e.f. 01.02.2012 Leave was not sanctioned due to his un-authorized absence from duty and communicated to the individual vide letter No.F.081/tsr-7/Estt./Leave/11/2044-48, dated 27.02.2012 2 21(twenty one) days commute d leave w.e.f. 30.03.2012 30.03.2012 Dr. Sankar Deb Roy, MS(Ortho), Senior Resident AGMC & GBP Hospital Fibromyalgia shoulder girdle disabling pain issued on 30.03.2012 for absence from duty for a period of 21(twenty one) days w.e.f. 30.03.2012. Leave was not sanctioned and communicated the same to the individual vide letter No.F.081/TSR- 7/Estt./Leave/11/4262- 66, Dated 16.04.2012. 3 15(fifteen ) days commute d leave w.e.f. 16.04.12 to 30.04.2012 02.05.2012 Dr. Sankar Sarkar, MBBS, MS ENT Specialist, GB Hospital Chsm Vertigo issued on 16.04.2012 for absence from duty for a period of 15(fifteen) days w.e.f. 16.04.2012 Leave was not sanctioned and communicated the same to the individual vide letter no.F.081/TSR- 7/Record/Leave/11/537 6-80, dated 17.05.2012. 3 15(fifteen ) days commute d leave w.e.f. 16.04.12 to 30.04.2012 02.05.2012 Dr. Sankar Sarkar, MBBS, MS ENT Specialist, GB Hospital Chsm Vertigo issued on 16.04.2012 for absence from duty for a period of 15(fifteen) days w.e.f. 16.04.2012 Leave was not sanctioned and communicated the same to the individual vide letter no.F.081/TSR- 7/Record/Leave/11/537 6-80, dated 17.05.2012. 4 15(fifteen ) days commuted leave w.e.f. 01.05.2012 02.05.2012 Dr. Sankar Sarkar, MBBS, MS ENT Specialist, GB Hospital Chsm Vertigo issued on 30.04.2012 for absence from duty for a period of 15(fifteen) days w.e.f. 01.05.2012. - 5 15(fifteen ) days commute d leave w.e.f. 16.05.2012 15.05.2012 Dr. Sankar Sarkar, MBBS, MS ENT Specialist, GB Hospital Chsm Vertigo issued on 14.05.2012 for absence from duty for a period of 15(fifteen) days w.e.f. 16.05.2012 Leave was not sanctioned and communicated the same to the individual vide letter no.F.081/TSR- 7/Record/Leave/11/278 8-89, dated 30.05.2012. 6 15(fifteen ) days commute d leave w.e.f. 31.05.201 2 01.06.2012 Dr. Sankar Sarkar, MBBS, MS ENT Specialist, GB Hospital Vertigo with Chsm issued on 31.05.2012 for absence from duty for a period of 15(fifteen) days w.e.f. 31.05.2012 Leave was not sanctioned and communicated the same to the individual vide letter no.F.081/TSR- 7/Record/Leave/11/644 8-52, dated 18.06.2012. 7 21(twenty one) days commute d leave w.e.f. 14.06.2012 14.06.2012 Dr. Arunagshu Roy, MO, Deptt. of ENT, IGM Hospital CSOMB issued on 14.06.2012 for absence from duty for a period of 21 days w.e.f. 14.06.2012 Leave was not sanctioned and communicated the same to the individual vide letter no.F.081/TSR- 7/Record/Leave/11/691 1-15, dated 04.07.2012 8 21(twenty one) days commute d leave w.e.f. 05.07.2012 06.07.2012 Dr. Sankar Deb, MS(Ortho), Senior Resident, AGMC & GBP Hospital FM severe pain issued on 05.07.2012 for absence from duty for a period of 21 days w.e.f. 05.07.2012 Leave was not sanctioned and communicated the same to the individual vide letter no.F.081/TSR 7/Record/Leave/11/795 8-63, dated 27.07.2012 9 15 days commute d leave w.e.f. 27.07.2012 31.07.2012 Dr. Sankar Sarkar, AGMC & GBP Hospital Acute vertigo Chsm issued on 27.07.2012 for absence from duty for a period of 15 days w.e.f. 27.07.2012 Leave was not sanctioned and communicated the same to the individual vide letter no.F.081/TSR- 7/Record/Leave/11/959 7-9601, dated 10.09.2012 10 7 days commute d leave w.e.f. 10.08.2012 Nil Dr. Binay Debbarma, MS, ENT, AGMC & GBP Hospital Suffering from the problem of ear nose on 10.08.2012 by Dr. Binay Debbarma, MS, ENT, AGMC & GBP Hospital Suffering from the problem of ear nose on 10.08.2012 by Dr. Binoy Debbarma for absence from duty for a period of 07 days w.e.f. 10.08.2012 Leave was not sanctioned and communicated the same to the individual vide letter no.F.081/TSR- 7/Record/Leave/11/959 7-9601, dated 10.09.2012 2. The petitioner while deployed at G.B.P. outpost, 7th Bn. TSR was commanded on 04.02.2012 by the In-charge, G.B.P. outpost to report to Bn. H.Qtrs., Jampuijala but did not carry out the orders and remained absent from duty unauthorizedly w.e.f. 04.02.2012. A memorandum along with the statement of article of charge-I & II to hold regular inquiry u/R.14 of the Central Civil Services(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 read with R.40 of the TSR(DCSC, etc.) Rules 1986 was served upon the petitioner dt.23.02.2012. The statement of articles of charge I & II framed against the petitioner is reproduced hereunder : “Statement of articles of charge framed against No.97040859 NK(M/A) Nakul Chandra Das of ‘Adm’ Coy, 7th Bn TSR(IV-VI) ARTICLE-I That the said No.97040859 NK(M/A) Nakul Chandra Das of ‘Adm’ Coy, 7th Bn TSR(IV-VI) while deployed at GB post, 7th Bn TSR(IR-VI) was commanded on 04-02-2012 at 2030 hrs by the In-Charge, G B Post to report to Bn HQr, Jampuijala, but did not carry out the lawful order and thereby committed a gross misconduct under section 12(1) of TSR Act, 1983. (Sankar Debnath) Commandant 7th Bn TSR(IR-VI) ARTICLE-II That the said No.97040859 NK(M/A) Nakul Chandra Das of ‘Adm’ Coy, 7th Bn TSR(IR-VI) while deployed at G B Post, 7th Bn TSR(IR-VI) remained absent from duty un-authorisedly wef 04-02-2012 at 2030 hrs till the date of issue of the memorandum of charge and thereby committed a gross misconduct under section 12(1) of TSR Act, 1883. (Sankar Debnath) Commandant 7th Bn TSR(IR-VI)” 3. (Sankar Debnath) Commandant 7th Bn TSR(IR-VI)” 3. After calling for the petitioner’s explanation inquiry officer was appointed who after holding enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rules 1965 held both the articles of charge I & II proved against the petitioner-delinquent and the provisional punishment order of dismissal from service dt.21.08.2012 along with the copy of report of inquiry was served upon the petitioner calling for his explanation and after affording opportunity of hearing and taking note of the written explanation submitted by the petitioner the disciplinary authority confirmed the finding of guilt recorded by the inquiry officer but looking to the young age of the petitioner considered appropriate to take a lenient view and imposed a minor penalty of fine of one month’s pay & allowances u/Sec.12(1)(b) of the TSR Act 1983 and his period of absence w.e.f. 04.02.2012 to 17.07.2013 was treated as dies non and his joining to duty w.e.f. 18.07.2013 was accepted under its order dt.05.08.2013(Annexure-13). 4. The appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected by the appellate authority under order dt.01.01.2014 (Annexure-15) and that became the subject matter of challenge at the instance of the petitioner-delinquent. 5. The main thrust of submission of the petitioner’s counsel is not in reference to the punishment of one month’s pay & allowances which has been inflicted upon him but the emphasis of the counsel for the petitioner’s is that his period from 04.02.2012 to 17.07.2013 of 529 days which has been held to be dies non is more severe punishment than the schedule of penalties which has been provided under Rule 11 of the Rules 1965. 6. Counsel submits that by virtue of the order passed by the disciplinary authority treating his period of 529 days as dies non will obliterate his past service rendered from 1997 until he reported back to duty on 18.07.2013 for all practical purposes and he will be relegated from all his terminal benefits for the service which he rendered since 1997 till he reported back to duty on 18.07.2013 and for which no reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and action of the respondents according to the petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. 7. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents where justification has been tendered for long absence of the petitioner from duty and the charge of unauthorized absence stands proved after affording opportunity of hearing and due compliance of the principles of natural justice and after following the procedure prescribed under the Rules 1965 and as he was not on duty for all practical purposes from 04.02.2012 to 17.07.2013 and his illness certificates are lame excuses, the authority after taking note of the material on record and the young age of the delinquent punished him with one month pay & allowance and the authority considered it appropriate to regularize the unauthorized absence from duty by treating it as dies non and the period of unauthorized absence shall not be treated to be on duty for any purposes while dies non did not constitute break in service but the period treated as dies non would not qualify as service for pensionary benefits or increment etc. 8. Counsel further submits that the period of service which he rendered from the date of his appointment dt.15.09.1997 to 03.02.2012 and after he reported to duty from 18.07.2013 shall be considered to be qualifying service for all practical purposes and what being contended by the petitioner’s counsel is a misconception of law and it is not the case of the petitioner that either the procedure prescribed under the Rules 1965 has not been followed or opportunity of hearing has not been afforded or there is any violation of the principles of natural justice and when no error has been committed by the respondents in holding the disciplinary enquiry under the Rules 1965, at least it needs no interference. 9. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 10. 9. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 10. To apprise the facts in a nutshell that the charge leveled against the petitioner for unauthorized absence from 04.02.2012 is a misconduct under the conduct rules and the disciplinary enquiry was held in terms of the procedure prescribed under Rules 1965 for holding a major penalty and opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner-delinquent at all stages in the course of inquiry and the inquiry officer held both the charges proved against him and after affording opportunity of hearing the disciplinary authority confirmed the finding of guilt but looking to the young age of the petitioner punished with a minor penalty of withholding of one month’s pay & allowances and as he remained on unauthorized absence for a period from 04.02.2012 to 17.07.2013 authority considered it appropriate to treat the period as dies non and be treated on duty w.e.f. 18.07.2013. 11. After I have heard counsel for the parties I find no error being committed by the respondents in conducting the disciplinary inquiry and holding him guilty for the alleged allegation of unauthorized absence for which a procedure prescribed under the Rules 1965 has been followed. It is not the case of the petitioner that there was either a violation of natural justice or opportunity of hearing has not been afforded in the course of enquiry or the procedure prescribed under Rules 1965 has not been followed by the respondents while inflicting penalty upon him. 12. Indisputedly, the petitioner was on unauthorized absence from 04.02.2012 to 17.07.2013 and reported to duty on 18.07.2013, leave applications which were submitted by the petitioner details of which has been referred to indicates his indisciplined behaviour but still the authority looking to the young age of the petitioner took a lenient view of the matter and considered appropriate that the period during which he remained on unauthorized absence be treated to be dies non which has been referred to under F.R.18 and regularize his long absence from duty. If the petitioner remained on unauthorized absence for such a long period and the authority on conclusion of enquiry has to regularize the period on absence w.e.f. 04.02.2012 to 17.07.2013 and treated it as a dies non for which no independent enquiry was required to be initiated and is indeed not a penalty prescribed under Rule 11 of Rules 1965. 13. As regards the apprehension of the petitioner that his past service from the date of joining till he later reported to duty on 18.07.2013 be obliterated for all practical purposes appears to be misconceived. In fact, in service jurisprudence, the terms, ‘dies non’ refers to a day which cannot be treated as duty for any purpose while dies non does not constitutes break in service but the period treated as dies non does not qualify as service for pensionary benefits or increment or for any other purposes. 14. To further clarify in cases of abstain from work including on strike the leave sanctioning authority may order that the days on which work has not been performed be treated as dies non, i.e. the day which was treated as dies non will neither count as service nor be construed as break in service and the salary of the day is not paid to the employee on which he has abstain from work or has not transacted with the business of the day, in the circumstances the period treated as dies non means the absence of the day cannot be treated as duty for any purposes but at the same time will not construe as break in service. 15. In the instant case on treating the period from 04.12.2012 to 17.07.2013 as dies non means the period shall not be treated as on duty for any purposes and will not construe as break in service but the period of dies non does not qualify as service for pensionary benefits or increment, etc. which is always with the competence of the authority. More so, it is not the case of the petitioner that while taking a decision in regularizing the period of unauthorized absence in treating it to be as dies non a procedure prescribed has not been followed by the respondents as contemplated under the law. 16. I find no reason to interfere in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Rules 1965. 16. I find no reason to interfere in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Rules 1965. Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.