Declaring a period of absence as 'dies non' is an administrative accounting measure for service records, not a disciplinary penalty. It does not constitute condonation of misconduct, and thus, does not preclude an employer from initiating separate disciplinary proceedings for the same period of absence.

JUDGMENT :

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.

1. This intra-Court appeal arises out of an order dated 26.02.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge whereby W.P.(C) 4161/2019 filed by the appellant, challenging the order of compulsory retirement by way of punishment passed against the appellant, has been dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records available before us on this intra-Court appeal.

3. Before adverting to the competing submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we may note certain facts which are essential for appropriate resolution of the issue which has arisen for our consideration in this appeal.

4. The appellant was appointed as Group ‘D’ Helper in the establishment of the respondent – Indian Institute of Technology (hereinafter referred to as ‘IIT’) on 27.11.1992 whereupon he was confirmed on the said post on 05.05.2003. The appellant is said to have been unauthorisedly absent from duty between 28.09.2015 to 26.02.2016 i.e. for a period of about five months. The respondent constituted an inquiry committee vide Office Memorandum dated 15.02.2016 to examine the appellant’s unauthorised absence for the said period. In the proceedings initiated vide Office Memorandum dated 15.02.2016, the appellant submitted an explanation stating therein that he had not been performing his duties for the reason that he was away to attend to his wife who was suffering from some mental disorder. The appellant also sought consideration of this period of absence on humanitarian grounds.

5. The competent authority, on considering the report of the inquiry committee constituted vide Office Memorandum dated 15.02.2016 and the explanation submitted by the appellant, issued a memorandum dated 02.06.2016, recording the period of absence from 28.09.2015 to 26.02.2016 as dies non for all purposes except for pensionary benefits.

6. Thereafter, a fresh charge sheet dated 16.08.2016 was issued against the appellant by the respondent initiating an inquiry under Statute 13(9) of the Statutes of IIT, Delhi on the allegations of unauthorised absence for the same period i.e. 28.09.2015 to 26.02.2016. The said memorandum of charge dated 16.08.2016 contained imputation of charges. In the imputation of charges, reference was also made, apart from a reference to unauthorised leave between 28.09.2015 to 26.02.2016, to all the previous instances of unauthorised leave which were either regularised or finalised after issuing warnings to the appellant. It was also stated in the charge-memo that despite such warnings, the appellant continued to remain unauthorisedly absent from duty without prior sanction of leave. The departmental proceedings in terms of Statute 13(9) of the Statutes were conducted and after giving opportunity to the appellant to submit his explanation and allowing him to participate in the disciplinary proceedings, an inquiry report was submitted on 19.09.2017. The disciplinary authority i.e. Director of the IIT, Delhi issued a memorandum to the appellant dated 09.11.2017, enclosing therewith a copy of the inquiry report and a summary of unauthorised leave record, proposed penalty of compulsory retirement and also invited representation from the appellant against the inquiry report. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, on perusal of the inquiry report and other relevant documents, including the representation made