JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs: i) The respondents may be directed to not treat the period of absence, w.e.f. 10.03.2018 to 24.09.2018 of 182 days as “DIES NON”. ii) The impugned orders dated 08.11.2018 (Annexure A/7), order dated 03.11.2009 (Annexure A/10) and order dated 08.04.2019 (Annexure A/12) may be held void and the same may be set aside. iii) The respondents may be directed to commute/debit the period of absence 198 days, w.e.f. 10.03.2018 to 24.09.2018 from the leave reserve account of the applicant as medical leave, the applicant has sufficient 450 commuted leaves in his account. iv) The respondents may be directed to pay the salary to the applicant for the period of absence of 198 days, w.e.f. 10.03.2018 to 24.09.2018 alongwith 9% interest from the date of joining dated 24.09.2018. 2. Petitioner while posted as Head Constable proceeded on sanctioned seven days special leave w.e.f. 23.02.2018. Petitioner extended his special leave for eight more days for the period 02.03.2018 to 9.03.2018. Petitioner did not join his duties w.e.f. 10.03.2018, however, the duties were resumed by petitioner belatedly on 24.09.2018. 3. Petitioner had attributed the reasons for his absence to his prolonged ailment. As per petitioner, he had remained under treatment of Dr. Hemant Kumar at ‘NEEL KANTH’ Multi-specialty Hospital Mandi. 4. Respondent No.4 by an order dated 08.11.2018 (Annexure A-7) ordered the period of absence of petitioner from duty for 198 days w.e.f. 10.03.2018 to 23.09.2018 as period of “Unauthorized absence” and regularized the same as under: - Period Treated as 23.02.2018 to 09.03.2018 15 days special leave already sanctioned in his favour, is hereby cancelled and sanctioned 15 days earned leave. 10.03.2018 to 23.09.2018 Un-authorized absence for 198 days is hereby treated as ‘Dies Non’ under 25.1 CCS (Leave) Rule. 24.09.2018 01 day sanctioned as earned leave 5. Another order came to be issued by respondent No. 4 on 21.11.2018 (Annexure A-8) in following terms: - “HHC Gian Chand No. 156 of this district was absent from duty w.e.f. 10.03.2018 to 23.09.2018. The absence period of total 198 days w.e.f. 10.03.2018 to 23.09.2018 has been treated as “DIES NON” vide this office order Endst. No. 37648-52, dated 08.11.2018. Another order came to be issued by respondent No. 4 on 21.11.2018 (Annexure A-8) in following terms: - “HHC Gian Chand No. 156 of this district was absent from duty w.e.f. 10.03.2018 to 23.09.2018. The absence period of total 198 days w.e.f. 10.03.2018 to 23.09.2018 has been treated as “DIES NON” vide this office order Endst. No. 37648-52, dated 08.11.2018. Hence, 198 days “DIES NON” period after taking into account from the date of his annual increment w.e.f. 01.06.2018, the same will be deferred to 16.12.2018 as per FRSR-26(a). Now he is entitled for the grant of annual increment w.e.f. 16.12.2018 instead of 01.06.2018. Order be published in Order Book.” 6. Before passing aforesaid orders, respondent No. 4 had issued a notice dated 16.10.2018 to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why he had not got further treatment from nearest Government Hospital or any other Specialist from Government Medical College, Nerchowk and I.G.M.C., Shimla. Petitioner was required to submit his reply within five days, failing which the right was reserved to presume that petitioner had nothing to say and period of absence was held liable to be treated as ‘Dies Non’ for all purposes under CCS (Leave) Rules, 25.1. 7. In response to the show cause notice, petitioner submitted that during his sanctioned leave between 23.02.2018 to 01.03.2018, he had a fall resulting in injury and backache for which he visited nearest clinic/hospital of Dr. B.D. Thakur, Retired District Ayurvedic Officer for first aid as it was a holiday on 01.03.2018. Petitioner had received first aid and was advised rest for seven days. Petitioner had in such circumstances applied for extension of leave upto 09.03.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner had also consulted the Doctor at Zonal Hospital at Mandi on 02.03.2018 as the Government Medical College, Nerchowk was not functioning at that time. Since, petitioner did not recover, he consulted Specialist, Dr. Hemant Kumar, M.D.(Medicine) at Neelkanth Multispecialty Hospital, Mandi, H.P. Petitioner continued to be treated in the said hospital from 09.03.2018 to 23.09.2018 for ‘Asthmatic Bronchitis C’ with Hypertension. Petitioner was declared fit to resume duty on 24.09.2018 and for such reasons, which according to petitioner were beyond his control, he was unable to attend his duty w.e.f. 10.03.2018 to23.09.2018. 8. Alongwith his response, petitioner also submitted documents i.e. medical prescription slip of Dr. Petitioner was declared fit to resume duty on 24.09.2018 and for such reasons, which according to petitioner were beyond his control, he was unable to attend his duty w.e.f. 10.03.2018 to23.09.2018. 8. Alongwith his response, petitioner also submitted documents i.e. medical prescription slip of Dr. B.D Thakur, medical prescription slip of Zonal Hospital, Mandi, and medical prescription slip of Neelkanth Multispecialty Hospital, Mandi, H.P.alongwith treatment summary/fitness certificate. 9. Respondent No. 4, vide order dated 08.11.2018 held that the reply submitted by petitioner was not convincing as the contents of said reply were found contradictory to the contents of application submitted by petitioner on 01.03.2018 for extension of eight days special leave. 10. Petitioner assailed the orders dated 08.11.2018 (Annexure A-7), 21.11.2018 (Annexure A-8) passed by respondent No. 4, by filing appeal before DIG, Police Central Range, Mandi. Having remained unsuccessful petitioner also filed revision petition before Director General of Police, H.P. but the grievance of the petitioner remained unredressed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 12. The main grouse of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 had passed orders dated 08.11.2018 and 21.11.2018 in violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner was condemned unheard. The impugned orders were non-speaking and un-reasoned.No inquiry was ever conducted. 13. There is no dispute on facts that the sanctioned special leave of petitioner ended on 09.03.2018 and thereafter the petitioner had resumed his duty on 24.09.2018. 14. It is the case of the petitioner that he had informed respondent No. 4 by e-mail dated 09.03.2018 about his illness and the rest advised to him by Medical Officer. A copy of e-mail has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. 15. Respondent No. 4, vide order dated 08.11.2018 had ordered unauthorized absence for 198 days of petitioner to be treated as ‘Dies Non’ under Rules 25.1 of CCS (Leave) Rules. This order followed by another order dated 21.11.2018 inter alia directing the deferment of the date of annual increment of petitioner from 01.06.2018 till 16.12.2018. 16. Under Rule 11 (iv) of CCS CCA Rules, 1965 withholding of increment of pay is a minor penalty. 17. In Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. This order followed by another order dated 21.11.2018 inter alia directing the deferment of the date of annual increment of petitioner from 01.06.2018 till 16.12.2018. 16. Under Rule 11 (iv) of CCS CCA Rules, 1965 withholding of increment of pay is a minor penalty. 17. In Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., 2007 SCC Online M.P. 259, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that when an authority directs any period to be treated as ‘Dies Non’, it means that continuity of service is maintained, but the period treated ‘Dies Non’ is not counted for leave, salary, increment and pension. Thus, the order to treat any period of absence as ‘Dies Non’ is also stigmatic. 18. Rule 16(1-A) of CCS CCA Rules, reads as under: - “(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause(b) of sub- rule(1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under Clause(a) of that sub-rule, to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the government servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in {sub-rules(3) to (24) of Rule 14}, before making any order imposing on the government servant any such penalty.” 19. Thus, respondent No. 4 was obligated to hold an enquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (24) of Rule 14 of CCS CCA Rules before making an order imposing the penalty of withholding of the increment on the petitioner. 20. It can, otherwise, be seen that the petitioner had not been afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. On receipt of reply of petitioner to the show cause notice, petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to prove his stand. Admittedly, disputed questions of fact were involved but respondent No. 4 had proceeded to reject the defence raised by petitioner without affording him an opportunity to produce evidence in support thereof. This clearly amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 21. Thus, the orders dated 8.1.2018 (Annexure A-7) and order dated 21.11.2018 (Annexure A-8) issued by respondent No.4 cannot be sustained. 22. This clearly amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 21. Thus, the orders dated 8.1.2018 (Annexure A-7) and order dated 21.11.2018 (Annexure A-8) issued by respondent No.4 cannot be sustained. 22. The Appellate and Revisional Authorities have also failed to consider the effect of violation of principles of natural justice and for such reason the order dated 03.01.2019, passed by DIG, Police Central Range, Mandi, H.P. in appeal of the petitioner, Annexure A-10 and order dated 08.04.2019, Annexure A-12, passed by Director General of Police, H.P. also cannot withstand the judicial scrutiny. 23. In result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 08.11.2018 (Annexure A-7), 21.11.2018 (Annexure A-8), 03.01.2019 (Annexure A-10) and 08.04.2019 (Annexure A-12) are quashed and set aside. However, respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against petitioner strictly in accordance with law after adherence to the principles of natural justice. 24. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.