1. Service absence declared dies non after inquiry — challenge to order quashing benefits. (Para 1 , 2 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 640
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Neelam Gehlot W/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar Garg – Appellant
Versus
Director, Women and Child Development Department, Jaipur – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2794 of 2017
Decided On : 27-02-2026
Important Points
Courts should not substitute their view for a disciplinary authority's findings unless there is a manifest violation of natural justice or error of law. Willful absence without sanctioned leave can be legally treated as dies non for all service benefits.
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 - Rules 59, 76, 83 and 86 - Absence from duty - Willful absence - Treatment of period as dies non for all service benefits - Leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is subject to the discretion of the competent authority - Absence without sanctioned leave or satisfactory reasons amounts to willful absence involving forfeiture of past service unless regularized (Paras 15, 17, 18).
(B) Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - Scope and limits - Constitutional courts should refrain from acting as appellate authorities in departmental proceedings unless there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice or lack of evidence (Paras 11, 12) - The court’s supervisory jurisdiction does not extend to re-appreciating evidence or replacing disciplinary findings unless there is a manifest error of law or procedural unfairness (Para 11).
Facts of the case:
A government employee remained absent from duty for over two decades, claiming continued illness. Medical certificates produced for a portion of the period were not issued by a competent medical officer. Despite a transfer order and being granted permanent status, the employee did not resume duties until an interim order was passed by the court. A subsequent disciplinary inquiry concluded that the absence was voluntary and unjustified, leading the disciplinary authority to declare the period from the date of absence until the date of joining as dies non for all purposes, including annual increments, leave, and pension benefits.
Findings of Court:
The employee failed to produce sufficient evidence or valid medical certification to justify the absence in accordance with the applicable service rules. The disciplinary authority followed the principles of natural justice by providing the employee an opportunity to defend the case during the inquiry. The decision to treat the period as dies non was based on factual findings of willful negligence.
Issues: Whether the declaration of the absence period as dies non was arbitrary and illegal and whether the court should interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the disciplinary authority has the primary responsibility to adjudicate misconduct. Interference by the court is only permissible if there is a manifest violation of legal principles or procedural fairness. Since the absence was willful and not supported by valid leave or medical certificates, the treatment of the period as dies non was legally sound.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
(B) Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings - Scope and limits - Constitutional courts should refrain from acting as appellate authorities in departmental proceedings unless there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice or lack of evidence (Paras 11, 12) - The court’s supervisory jurisdiction does not extend to re-appreciating evidence or replacing disciplinary findings unless there is a manifest error of law or procedural unfairness (Para 11).
Facts of the case:
A government employee remained absent from duty for over two decades, claiming continued illness. Medical certificates produced for a portion of the period were not issued by a competent medical officer. Despite a transfer order and being granted permanent status, the employee did not resume duties until an interim order was passed by the court. A subsequent disciplinary inquiry concluded that the absence was voluntary and unjustified, leading the disciplinary authority to declare the period from the date of absence until the date of joining as dies non for all purposes, including annual increments, leave, and pension benefits.
Findings of Court:
The employee failed to produce sufficient evidence or valid medical certification to justify the absence in accordance with the applicable service rules. The disciplinary authority followed the principles of natural justice by providing the employee an opportunity to defend the case during the inquiry. The decision to treat the period as dies non was based on factual findings of willful negligence.
Issues: Whether the declaration of the absence period as dies non was arbitrary and illegal and whether the court should interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the disciplinary authority has the primary responsibility to adjudicate misconduct. Interference by the court is only permissible if there is a manifest violation of legal principles or procedural fairness. Since the absence was willful and not supported by valid leave or medical certificates, the treatment of the period as dies non was legally sound.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- service law
-
practice and procedure
-
writ jurisdiction
- article 226 (Para 22)
-
writ jurisdiction
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Punit Sighvi, Suhani Singh
For the Respondents: Akash Guar, Aditya Sharma
For the Appellants : Punit Sighvi, Suhani Singh
For the Respondents: Akash Guar, Aditya Sharma
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed illness and denial of joining; respondents argued no justification for absence and lack of medical evidence. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. Court found absence willful, medical certificates inadequate, and no violation of natural justice or rules. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. Courts should not interfere in disciplinary findings unless there is procedural violation or lack of evidence. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; dies non order upheld; no order as to costs. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 )
6. Can a court re-appreciate evidence in disciplinary proceedings?
No, constitutional courts should not act as appellate authorities unless there is clear violation of natural justice or lack of evidence. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. What is the effect of absence without sanctioned leave under service rules?
Willful absence without leave amounts to interruption of service involving forfeiture of past service unless regularized by competent authority. (Para 17 )
8. Can sympathy justify interfering with a disciplinary order?
No, generosity or misplaced sympathy cannot be a factor in judicial review of disciplinary matters. (Para 20 )
ORDER :
1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with following prayer:-
"i) by an appropriate writ, order or directions the entire record pertaining to the case of petitioner may be called for the perusal of the Hon'ble Court.
ii) by an appropriate writ, order directions the impugned action of the respondents of passing the impugned order without appreciating the relevant facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be declared as arbitrary, illegal and bad in law.
iii) by an appropriate writ, order or directions the impugned order dated 25.03.2015 of declaring the services of the petitioner for the period from 04.08.1990 to 29.08.2011 as dies non for all service benefits like annual pay Increment, leave benefit, pension etc. may kindly be quashed and set aside. Further, the respondents may be directed to give notional benefits to the petitioner for the said period.
iv) by an appropriate writ, order directions the, action of the respondents of not allowing her to join services despite several communication, legal notices and even after filing of the writ petition till interim order was granted may kindly be deprecated in strongest terms. Further, the respondents may be saddled with heavy cost for causing harassment.
v) Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioner;
vi) Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Lady Supervisor Grade-III on 26.06.1986 in the Office of Project Officer, Jaitaran, District Pali. He further submitted that the petitioner fell seriously ill and was unable to attend the duties, and she has sent an application for medical leave. He further submitted that the petitioner remained continuously ill up to 27.08.1992 and when the petitioner approached the office of the Project Officer to resume her duties, then she was not allowed to join. He further submitted that the petitioner has submitted several representations and letters but she was not allowed to join. He further submitted that a disciplinary proceeding was instituted against her and was forced to file a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court, wherein after intervention of this Hon'ble Court, the respondents have permitted the petitioner to join on duty. He also referred the order passed by a Co-ordinate bench of this Hon'ble court on 23.09.2013 and submitted that after disposal of the writ petition, the disciplinary proceedings were concluded, but the period from 04.08.1990 to 29.08.2011 was treated as dies-non, which is contrary to the facts of the case. He also submitted that after a legal notice, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in the year 2006 and there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner, but still the period from 2003 onwards, in particular, from 2006 to 2011, cannot be treated as dies-non.
3. Learned counsel submitted that declaration of the period as dies non will affect her entitlement for annual increment, leave and pension benefits. He also submitted that the disciplinary authority has violated the basic principles of administrative law and also of natural justice before arriving at a conclusion to declare the entire period as dies-non. He also referred the material and submitted that from 04.08.1990 the petitioner was severely ill and medical leave can be sanctioned, but thereafter, she was not permitted to join on 28.08.1992, though, she was transferred on 12.08.1992 to Ahore. At last, he submitted that the order is itself without any basis and against all norms, therefore, same be quashed and set aside.
4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and submitted that earlier writ petition filed by petitioner was disposed on 23.09.2013 and the petitioner has filed a DB Special Appeal (Writ), but same was also dismissed. He further submitte
