Allowed

Dr. Gulshan Netam v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 May 2026WPS/3995/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A medical officer challenged an order declaring his 758-day absence from duty as dies-non, passed without hearing or departmental enquiry. The court held dies-non is a major penalty requiring due process under the CCA Rules and quashed the order, leaving liberty to proceed afresh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07.06.2018 declaring absence period as dies-non quashed; liberty left to the authority to proceed afresh per the CCA Rules, 1966.

Dr. Gulshan Netam Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

2026:CGHC:21578

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 3995 of 2023

¶6

Dr. Gulshan Netam S/o Dr. R.N. Netam Aged About 33 Years R/o G 11 Agrasen Nagar, Ring Road 1, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Police Station Rakhi, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Directorate Of Medical Education Through Director, Dks Bhawan Parisar, Old Nurses Hostel, Besides Lal Ganga Complex Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

-- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the Petitioner : Mr. Sajal Gupta, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Dy. GA with Ms.

¶13

Akansha Verma, PL.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

08.05.2026

¶17

With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.

¶18

¶19

2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶20

of India with following reliefs:

¶21

“10. RELIEF(S) SOUGHT

¶22

10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the Respondent authorities with respect to present case of the petitioner.

¶23

10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 07.06.2018 (Annexure P-1); and

¶24

10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also be awarded to the Petitioner including the cost of the petition.”

¶25

The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 07.06.2018 (Annexure P-1), whereby the period of absence of the petitioner from 01.06.2015 to 28.06.2017 has been declared as Dies-Non.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 10.06.2014, petitioner was appointed as ‘Medical Officer’, he joined the service with effect from 21.08.2014 and posted at Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur. Subsequently on request vide order dated 30.07.2016, he was transferred to Community Health Center, Ambagarh Chowki, Distt. Rajnandgaon. The petitioner attended his duty at Maharani Hospital Jagdalpur till 31.05.2015 and, thereafter, he proceeded on leave to prepare for the exam of UPSC and joined the new place of posting on 29.06.2017 and, thereby, he remained absent from his duty

¶27

¶28

from 01.06.2015 to 28.06.2017. However, after one year of joining his duty, order Annexure P-1 dated 07.06.20218 was served to the petitioner informing that his absence period from 01.06.2015 to 28.06.2017 has been declared as dies-non. Learned Counsel contended that Annexure P-1 order of diesnon has been passed without providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without conducting any departmental enquiry (DE), whereas it is a settled principle of law that dies-non is a major penalty/punishment, therefore, granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and conducting the DE are necessary, however, without following Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the CCA Rules, 1966), the impugned order Annexure P-1 has been passed, hence, it is prayed that impugned order dated 07.06.2018 (Annexure P-1) be quashed/set-aside.

¶29

Learned State Counsel opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioner and while referring to its reply dated 16.04.2026 would submit that the petitioner remained absent from his duty from 01.06.2015 to 28.06.2017 without permission or filing any application for leave before the concerned Authority. Since, the petitioner remained absent from his duty without any information, therefore, show-cause notices dated 16.04.2018 & 26.04.2018 (Annexure R-1) have been issued to him, but he

¶30

¶31

did not respond to the said notices, hence, it amount to waiver of right. The absence period of the petitioner from 01.06.2015 to 28.06.2017 is 758 days, therefore, absence period has been declared dies-non vide Annexuer P-1, in which, interference is not required.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition.

¶33

7. For ready reference, Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1966 reads as under:

¶34

“14. Procedure for imposing penalties. (1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 shall be made except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in this rule and Rule 15 or in the manner provided by the Public Servants' (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850), where such inquiry is held under that Act.

¶35

In case of Basanti Joshi versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors decided on 22.06.2018 in WPS No.375/20210, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Battilal versus Union of India, 2005 (3) MPHT 32 (DB) held that order of dies-non is having an effect of major punishment and will also adversely affect the pensionary benefits and retiral benefits on his/her retirement. When any order is issued against any employee, it is having the effect of adverse civil consequence and he/she should be

¶36

¶37

granted an opportunity of hearing.

¶38

In another case of Dr. NS Patel versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors decided on 03.11.2015 in WPS No.4922/2010, the Coordinate Bench of this Court held that declaring the period of absence dies-non are punitive order and it cannot be passed without proceeding departmentally as per procedure contained in the CCA Rules, 1966.

¶39

Undisputedly, the petitioner remained absent from his duty from 01.06.2015 to 28.06.2017 without informing to the concerned Authority and without filing any leave application. Petitioner was posted in the intervening period as medical officer at Community Health Center, Ambagarh Chowki, Distt. Rajnandgaon, thus, he was on vital duty to serve the people, but he was unauthorisedly absent from his duty for such long period, ie, 758 days, hence, his service for such period has been declared dies-non.

¶40

In case at hand, it is not disputed by the respondent/State that except two show-cause-notices Annexure R-1 issued to the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing has been provided to him and no departmental enquiry has been conducted prior to passing of impugned order Annexure P-1.

¶41

In other words, without following due procedure contemplated in the CCA Rules, 1966, the major penalty of ‘dies-non’ has

¶42

¶43

been imposed against the petitioner, therefore, impugned order Annexure P-1 is not sustainable in the eyes of law as same is passed in violation of the principle of nature justice.

¶44

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 07.06.2018 (Annrexure P-1) is hereby quashed, however, liberty is left with the concerned Authority to go ahead following the CCA Rules, 1966 in respect of said unauthorized

¶45

absence period of the petitioner, if so desire.

¶46

CC as per rules.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

J/-

Dr. Gulshan Netam v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Gulshan Netam v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Fulmani

D. R. Baghmare Vs Shri K.N. Kandey

Pankaj Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gorelal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Durga Prasad Sao, Vs Smt Budhara Bai

Branch Manager Vs Narayan Prasad Rathore