Gangele, J. -- 1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order Annexure P-l dated 8.1.2004. By the aforesaid order the period of absence of the petitioner from 24.11.2002 to 21.7.2003 total period of 240 days have been declared as dies non.

2. As per the petitioner when he was working as Manager in District Commerce and Industries Centre, Morena (M.P.) a show cause notice was issued to him mentioning the facts that he was absent from duty w.e.f. 24.11.2002 to 21.7.2003 near about 240 days and he did not submit any application for the aforesaid period of absence, hence, why the aforesaid period be not treated as dies non.

3. Earlier, the petitioner did not receive salary for certain period for the year of 2003. He filed a petition before this Court which was registered as WP No. 622/03 and this Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner or assign reasons for non-payment of salary. Thereafter, the aforesaid show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply. He specifically mentioned that he was present on duty from 24.11.2002 to 21.7.2003. He further submitted that he was working in the office in the aforesaid period and also went on tour to Bhopal and same facts could be verified from the records. The petitioner mentioned detail facts in the reply, copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-3. However, vide impugned order the authority rejected the contentions of the petitioner and treated the period of absence of the petitioner as dies non. While rejecting the contentions of the petitioner the authority held that with regard to submission of the petitioner that he was present in the office, the General Manager, Industries in his noting mentioned that the petitioner was not present in the office and the documents submitted by the petitioner in his reply were related to his personal correspondence.

4. The respondents in the return denied the fact that the petitioner was present in the office during the period of absence i.e. from 24.11.2002 to 21.7.2003.

5. The petitioner who appeared in person submitted that dies non amount to major penalty because the period is not counted for leave, salary, increment and pension and it cannot be imposed without a regular departmental enquiry. In support of his contentions the petitioner relied on the Judgments of this Court reported in Battilal v. Union of India and others [2005 (II) MPWN 51 = 2005 (3) MPHT 32 (DB)] and also in Dr. Anil Kumar Varma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [2005 (1) MPHT 24 (NOC)].

6. Contrary to this the learned Deputy Government Advocate has submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter, impugned order of dies non has been passed and the dies non is not a major punishment as mentioned in M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Hence, the order is as per law.

7. From the facts stated above, it is clear that no regular departmental enquiry has been held against the petitioner while passing the order of treating his absence of 240 days i.e. from 24.11.2002 to 21.7.2003 as dies non. Earlier, when the salary of the petitioner for a certain period of 2003 was not paid to him, he filed a writ petition before this Court and this Court disposed of the petition of the petitioner with directions to respondents that either the salary of the petitioner be paid or reasons for non-payment be communicated to the petitioner. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply mentioning the facts that he was present and working in the office. In support of his contentions, he submitted various documents of his acts which he had done during the aforesaid period and the same contentions have been negatived on the basis of report submitted by the General Manager, Industries by the authority in passing the order of dies non.

8. A Division Bench of this Court reported