ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 16.2.2016 (Annexure P/1) as well as the order dated 26.8.2016 (Annexure P-11) passed by the respondent authorities whereby the suspension period of the petitioner from 25.10.2008 to 28.9.2011 has been declared as dies non and her representation against the said order has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that when the petitioner was posted as Tahsildar at Arang, Distt. Raipur, on account of some health issues, she made application dated 29.10.2008 (Annexure P/3) for grant of leave to have treatment abroad. The said application was never replied to by the respondents and therefore, she moved another application dated 25.10.2008 (Annexure P/4) for grant of earned leave from 25.10.2008 to 19.1.2009 (for 87 days) which also evoked no response. The petitioner was carrying pregnancy at that time and having some complications, so she decided to have medical treatment and went to USA where her husband was working as Software Engineer and there she underwent many operations, however, her baby could not survive as a result thereof she suffered mental shock. After returning from USA, the petitioner moved an application for joining her duties at Durg but the same was refused and later on, she came to know about her transfer to Kanker. She was suspended for not joining the place of her transfer, on which she filed a detailed representation (Annexure P/5) and thereafter, her suspension was revoked vide order dated 29.9.2011 (Annexure P/6). Thereafter, vide order dated 4.10.2011 she was posted at Narharpur, Distt. Kanker. Subsequently, on her representation, she was allowed salary of October, 2008 and subsistence allowance of the suspension period vide Annexure P/8. Meanwhile, a departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner on the alleged unauthorized absence from duties and finally, vide order dated 16.12.2013 (Annexure P/9) penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed on her as per Rule 10 of CCA Rules,1966. Thereafter, surprisingly, by the impugned order dated 16.2.2016 (Annexure P/1) the period from 25.10.2008 to 28.9.2011 was declared as dies non. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner moved a representation on 8.3.2016 (Annexure P/10) before the respondent No.1 against the said order, which was rejected vide order dated 26.8.2016 (Annexure P/11). Thereafter, surprisingly, by the impugned order dated 16.2.2016 (Annexure P/1) the period from 25.10.2008 to 28.9.2011 was declared as dies non. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner moved a representation on 8.3.2016 (Annexure P/10) before the respondent No.1 against the said order, which was rejected vide order dated 26.8.2016 (Annexure P/11). Hence this petition on the following grounds: “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 16-02-2016 (Annexure P-1) as well as the order dated 26-08-2016 (Annexure P-11). 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the service rules, dies non is a major penalty which has its consequential effects, therefore, before imposition of this penalty, a full-fledged departmental enquiry is required to be conducted. On the same charges, a departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, in which she was punished vide order dated 16.12.2013 by withholding her one increment without cumulative effect and therefore, she cannot be punished twice for the same misconduct or charges. The petitioner was having unblemished service record, there was no allegation or complaint against her and she had sufficient leaves in her account which could be sanctioned by the respondent authorities but they acted with malafides and declared the said leave period as dies non, and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to her before passing such order. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 30.10.2013 of this Court in the matters of Smt. Mrudula Rishi Vs. State of CG and others passed in WP No.101 of 2006 and the order dated 11.1.2018 passed by this Court in WPS No.1554 of 2005 in the matter of Mrs. Shubhara Kundu Vs. State of MP and others. 4. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 30.10.2013 of this Court in the matters of Smt. Mrudula Rishi Vs. State of CG and others passed in WP No.101 of 2006 and the order dated 11.1.2018 passed by this Court in WPS No.1554 of 2005 in the matter of Mrs. Shubhara Kundu Vs. State of MP and others. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner submitted an application on 25.10.2008 for grant of leave from 25.10.2008 to 19.1.2009 on the ground of her medical treatment outside the country and without waiting for sanction of the said application and without submitting any medical certificate of being unfit, proceeded on leave on the same date, which amounts to gross misconduct on her part and also violates the provisions of Rule 7 of CG Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. In fact, by order dated 24.10.2008 she was transferred from Berla to Narharpur, Distt. Kanker and just to avoid joining at her place of transfer, she proceeded on leave. Hence, on the aforesaid misconduct of the petitioner, she was suspended vide order dated 10.11.2008 and a proposal to conduct departmental enquiry against her was sent to the Divisional Commissioner, Raipur. Meanwhile, her suspension was revoked and she was posted at Kanker vide order dated 29.9.2011 making it clear that the period of her suspension would be decided after completion of departmental enquiry on merit. It is submitted that in the departmental enquiry, all the relevant materials were considered, the petitioner was afforded due opportunity of hearing and defence, and thereafter only the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.12.2013 the disciplinary authority passed an order withholding one increment without cumulative effect. Thus, it is incorrect to say that the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing before awarding her punishment. Thus, considering the overall conduct of the petitioner in proceeding on leave without getting it sanctioned and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the said period was declared as dies non vide impugned order dated 16.2.2016 which is strictly in accordance with law. Hence the present petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 6. Hence the present petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court in paras 8 & 9 of its judgment dated 16.6.2022 passed in the matter of Dr. Gourishankar Patel Vs. State of CG and others (WPS No.89/2013), observed as under: “8. In the case of Dr. N.S. Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in WPS No.4922/2010, this Court considering the judgment passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Ali Hussain Asgar Ali v. State of M.P. and another reported in 1984 JLJ 67 and in Battilal v. Union of India and others reported in (2005) 3 MPHT 32 (DB) has held thus: “12. In the matter of Ali Hussain Asgar Ali v. State of M.P. and another, 1984 JLJ 67 , the M.P. High Court while dealing with Rule 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Leave Rules, 1977, held as under: - “It is clear that sub-rule (1) provides that when a Government servant remains absent after expiry of leave he is entitled to no leave salary but it has been further provided that such period shall be debited against his leave account as though it were half pay leave to the extent such leave is due and the period in excess of such leave due being treated as extra-ordinary leave. Sub-rule (2) further provides that willful absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action. It is, therefore, clear that on the facts as they stand that the petitioner remained absent without the leave being sanctioned to him, and the only course open to the Government was either to act under sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule (2) of Rule 24. It could not be contended that the orders which were passed could be passed under sub-rule (1) and the learned Government Advocate could not refer to any rule which could justify an order as has been passed in this case, i.e. the order dated 21-7-1979. It is also not in dispute that if the State Government has chosen to act under sub-rule(2) of Rule 24, then it was necessary to follow the procedure of inquiry, which admittedly has not been done in this case. It is also not in dispute that if the State Government has chosen to act under sub-rule(2) of Rule 24, then it was necessary to follow the procedure of inquiry, which admittedly has not been done in this case. If it was chosen to act under sub-rule (2) then disciplinary action could only be taken after following the proper procedure. Admittedly, before passing of this order dated 21-7-1979 even a notice was not issued to the petitioner to pass such an order. It is, therefore, plain that this order which was passed by the State Government against the petitioner could not be justified under any of the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.” 13. Similarly, in a decision rendered in the matter of Battilal v. Union of India and others, 2005 (3) MPHT 32 (DB), which appears to have been taken into consideration in earlier decisions, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while considering the meaning of dies-non pertinently held as under: - “3......When the Authority directs that the period will be treated 'dies-non', it means that continuity of service is maintained, but the period treated as 'dies-non' will not count for leave, salary, increment and pension. In fact, F.R. 54 (1) casts such a duty on the authority. It provides that when a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired is reinstated as a result of appeal or review, the authority competent, to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order- (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the government servant for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.” 14. Thus, from perusal of the Rules and the law laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Battilal's case (supra), it would appear that to declare the period of absence from duty of a public servant in violation of Rule 7 of the Conduct Rules, 1965 and further to declare the period of absence as dies-non are punitive order and it cannot be passed without proceeding departmentally in view of the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. In the case in hand, the State Government straightway passed the order holding the petitioner guilty of Rule 7 of the Conduct Rules, 1965 and declaring the period of absence as dies-non without affording opportunity of hearing to him. The consequence would be, the order of the State Government dated 7-5-2005 becomes vulnerable and it is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent authorities to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner and proceed to take appropriate action against him in accordance with law and on its own merits.” 9. In case of Basanti Joshi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in WPS No. 375/2010, this Court considering the case of Battilal (supra) of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held thus: “7. A similar view has also been taken by this Court in the case of Bal Krishna Tamrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, W.P. 4328/2004 decided on 31.03.2010, referred to by the Petitioner so also in the case of Smt. Mrudula Rishi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., decided on 30.10.2013 in W.P. No. 101/2006. 8. In view of the afore cited authoritative decisions of this Court so also the Division Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the opinion of this Court the order of dies-non which has an effect of major punishment and also adversely affects the pensionary benefits so also the retiral benefits payable to the Petitioner on her retirement. The least that is expected from the Government is that on an order of such nature which has an adverse civil consequence on the Government employee, an opportunity of hearing ought to had been provided to the employee. In the absence of any such proceeding being drawn the impugned order of the Government treating the period between 6.12.2005 to 25.4.2007 as dies-non is not sustainable and the same deserves to be is accordingly set aside/quashed.” 7. In the present case also, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice prior to passing of the impugned order declaring the period of her absence to be dies non. The effect of the impugned order is having an adverse civil consequences upon the petitioner. Being so, before passing any such order against the delinquent employee, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided. 8. The effect of the impugned order is having an adverse civil consequences upon the petitioner. Being so, before passing any such order against the delinquent employee, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided. 8. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the principles of law laid down in the afore-cited decisions, the manner in which the impugned order dated 16.2.2016 (Annexure P/1) has been passed, this Court is of the opinion that it is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.2.2016 (Annexure P/1) treating the period from 25.10.2008 to 28.9.2011 as dies non, is hereby set aside, with consequences to follow. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law, if they so desire, for deciding the period of her alleged unauthorized absence from duties and to pass appropriate orders. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.