Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
Gian Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
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 belatedl
The absence of an employee cannot be treated as 'Dies Non' without adhering to principles of natural justice, including providing a fair hearing and opportunity to present evidence.
The importance of providing an opportunity of hearing to the employee/petitioner before passing any adverse order, as mandated by the principles of natural justice.
The respondents' issuance of impugned orders without following the principles of natural justice was a fundamental fault. The court emphasized the importance of serving a formal show cause notice, gr....
Court affirmed 'No Work No Pay' applies where absence is unauthorized and justified by inquiry findings.
The court held that disciplinary actions affecting an employee's career must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard prior to adverse decisions.
Even though there is no express requirement in Fundamental Rule 54[3] for giving an opportunity to employee before passing an order, giving of such an opportunity is implicit in the exercise of power....
The court ruled that treating the petitioner's absence as unauthorized was arbitrary, as he provided medical documentation and was not given a fair hearing.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
