Declaration of 'Dies-non' requires proper disciplinary proceedings and opportunity for the affected person to present their case.

R.B. Misra, J.

1. Heard Mr. this Court Talapatra, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Dutta, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents.

2. The order-dated 12.6.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 382/2000 is under challenge in this writ appeal, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant herein.

3. On the basis of the records, pleadings, it appears that the petitioner was serving at Srinagar H.S. School as Assistant Teacher, he was absent from duty w.e.f. 1.8.1993 to 20.10.1993 (290 days), 5.11.1993 to 6.3.1995 (487 days) and 14.3.1995 to 28.12.1995 (290 days). The period of his absence from 1.8.1993 to 20.10.1993 (81 days) has been regularized by granting 27 days half-pay leave, 30 days Earned Leave and 24 days Extra Ordinary Leave by the Head of Office/D.D.O. Gamaria H.S. School vide his memo No. F. 1(7)/HM/GHSS/93 dated 6.7.1998 and the leave salary has also been paid. The miscreants obstructed him to resume duty at school during the period from 5.11.1993 to 6.3.1995 and illness certificate covering the whole period with prayer for leave was submitted at a subsequent date on 17.3.1997, however, disbelieving the averments of writ petitioner (appellant herein), his forced absence was treated as fabricated and an attempt to mislead and confuse the Government. As per the provision of TSCS (Leave) Rules, 1986, it was indicated to the writ petitioner vide Memo No. PFSRNH (34) DSE.93 dated 5.6.1998 that the period was treated as 'Dies-Non' vide Memo No. PFSRNH (34) DSE/95 dated 10.8.1998, however, the period of service prior to the period of 'Dies-Non' was not forfeited. According to the appellant, he was on Casual Leave on 14.3.1995 and 15.3.1995 and his name was struck off from the Attendance Register by the Headmaster, Srinagar H.S. School on and from 16.3.1995, and as such, he could not put his signature during the period from 16.3.1995 to 28.12.1995. But on examining the Attendance Register for the relevant period, it was found that his name was not struck off from the Attendance Register and it was very much existed there even in subsequent months and the allegations of the writ petitioner/appellant were not found correct and he was treated willfully, unauthorizedly absent from duty for the period from 16.3.1995 to 28.12.1995 prefixing two days' Casual Leave on 14.3.1995 and 15.3.1995. The writ petitioner accordingly was not treated as on duty during the period of his absence from 16.3.1995 to 28.12.1995 and the said period was not regularized by granting leave.

4. According to respondents, from 7.3.1995 to 13.3.1995 the writ petitioner came to the school at 10.30 a.m. and had put his signature in the Attendance Register but he did not work. He left school without any intimation to the Headmaster, as such, these days were treated as 'Dies-Non', as merely putting signature in the Attendance Register does not establish that some one has done his duty, however, taking a sympathetic view Sri Majumder was treated to have been on duty during the said period from 7.3.95 to 13.3.1995. According to opposite parties as per explanation No. 1 below Rule 11 of TSCS (Leave) Rules, 1986 Casual Leave cannot be combined with any other kind of leave and therefore, in the case of writ petitioner/appellant two days' Casual Leave (for 14th & 15th March, 1995) was combined with a willful unauthorized continuous absence of 288 days from 16.3.1995 to 28.12.1995 making the total period of absence as 290 days. According to the opposite parties, the pay, arrears, increments as admissible to the writ petitioner have already been paid to him.

5. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that without undergoing disciplinary proceeding the monetary benefit of the writ petitioner/appellant cannot be curtailed and the period during which the writ petitioner was prevented to attend d