RAJIB SINHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged orders dated 21.08.2015, 29.10.2015 and 22.06.2018 in following manner. Petitioner is a teacher employed in Government school. He was under order of transfer from Tolakona High School, Jirania to S.B. School, Haripur under order dated 04.03.2014. He did not report to the place of transfer right upto October, 2014 without sanction of leave. He was issued a show cause notice dated 06.02.2015 calling upon him why the period of absence from 08.04.2014 to 17.10.2014 be not treated as dies-non for all purposes without forfeiture of his past service and further disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his unauthorized absence from duty. He replied to the said show cause notice under a communication dated 16.02.2015 mainly contending that his absence from duty was not willful. He suffered from rheumatic pain and, therefore, could not attend the school. His explanation was not found satisfactory. The Director of School Education, therefore, passed the impugned order dated 21.08.2015 and ordered that the said period of absence between 08.04.2014 to 17.10.2014 be treated as dies-non for all purposes without entailing forfeiture of his past service. The Petitioner made a representation on 01.09.2015 requesting the Director to review the said decision. This representation was rejected by an order dated 29.10.2015. He yet again requested reconsideration of original decision under letter dated 29.10.2015 once again the Director turn down the request by further order dated 22.06.2018 upon which this petition is filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without initiating departmental proceedings order of dies-non could not have been passed. He relied on a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 12.01.2017 passed in Writ Petition(c) No.276/2016 in case of Sri Santosh Debnath v. The State of Tripura and Others in which it was observed that though Rule 11 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 do not list 'Dies Non' as one of the penalties, by very nature of things it results into adverse consequences and, therefore, it is in the nature of penalty.

(3.) I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Firstly, the authorities had issued a show cause notice giving details of the background under which the Director proposed to treat the said period of absence as dies-non without entailing forfeiture of past service. The petitioner had replied to the said show cause notice. Her defence was found not satisfactory. Even if therefore, it is to be seen as an order of minor penalty, there was substantial compliance of the principal of natural justice. Not being a major penalty, the authorities were not required to follow the procedure laid down in Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules.