(Reserved on 05.01.2026)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH (Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur)

This the 09^th day of January, 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Original Application No. 846 of 2019 Santosh Kumar Dhande, S/o Late Baijnath Ji Dhande, presently working as PRT, KV-I/Raipur, aged about 53 years, R/o Shivanand Nagar, Sector – 3, Near Sidhhi Vinayak Temple, Khamtarai, Raipur (CG) - 492008.

…….Applicant Advocate for the applicant: Shri A.V. Shridhar V E R S U S Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of HRD, Department of Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001.

1.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through the Section Officer (Estt- II), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (HQ), 18, Institutional Area, 2.

Saheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi - 110018.

Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Chhattisgarh Region, Sector-IV, Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur

3.

(CG) - 492010.

Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Raipur, WRS Colony, Raipur (CG) - 492008.

4.

…….Respondents Advocate for the respondents: Shri Siddharth Rathod for respondent no. 1 Ms. Deepali Pandey for respondents 2 to 4 O R D E R By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM-

The present original application has been directed against the order dated 25.09.2018 (Annexure A-1) whereby the requested of applicant to remove the period of absence from 09.12.2012 to 01.04.2013 as dies-non has been disagreed by the competent authority.

2. The applicant has contended that during an official tour program conducted by the Bharat Scout and Guide at Pachmarhi, he got a fracture in his left leg on 03.12.2012 and after plaster of fractured leg, he was advised for rest. The applicant also informed the Principal about the incidence and after return, he submitted an application dated 08.12.2012 to the Principal but vide letter dated 13.03.2013, he was directed to report for duty immediately. Since, he was under treatment, he could not report for duty. However, on 01.04.2013 (Annexure A-6), the applicant was declared fit to resume his duty from 02.04.2013. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to him to explain as to why the period from 09.12.2012 to 02.04.2013 should not be treated as dies non to which the applicant filed his response but the respondents vide order dated 06/17.12.2013 (Annexure A-8) passed the order treating the period from 09.12.2012 to 01.04.2013 as dies non for all purposes. Against this order, he filed application dated 17.01.2014 and 12.03.2018 but the same has been turned down vide order dated 25.09.2018. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the instant original application.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the action of the respondents is unjustified and against the rules as the declaration of period as dies non entails civil consequences and could not be done without conducting a disciplinary proceeding. Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant has not been given opportunity to defend himself. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant has cited the judgment of Hon’ble High Court At Gauhati dated 01.11.2020 passed on W.P (C) No. 551/1997 - Arunangsho Roy Vs. State of Tripura . The learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that despite the fact that the applicant was suffering from fracture and was undergoing treatment and this fact was already intimated to the Principal, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the applicant was negligent in informing the respondents in time. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the action the respondents being illegal, arbitrary and unjustified may be quashed and relief may be granted to the applicant.

4. Upon notice, the respondents have filed reply stating therein that the applicant did not submit leave application in proper format for the period 09.12.2012 to 01.04.2013 and had remained absent from

03.02.2013 to 01.04.2013 without any intimat