The Delhi High Court, in Ashok Kumar v. Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, considered a significant question in service jurisprudence: whether an employee can be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for unauthorised absence after the same period of absence has already been declared dies non. The appellant contended that the subsequent punishment of compulsory retirement amounted to double punishment for the same misconduct. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, rejected this contention and clarified the legal distinction between treating a period as dies non and imposing disciplinary penalties for misconduct.
Ashok Kumar, the appellant, was employed as a Group ‘D’ Helper at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi. He was initially appointed on 27 November 1992 and was confirmed in service on 5 May 2003. During his tenure, he remained absent from duty without authorisation from 28 September 2015 to 26 February 2016, a period of approximately five months.
To examine this prolonged absence, IIT Delhi constituted an inquiry committee through an Office Memorandum dated 15 February 2016. In response to the inquiry, the appellant explained that his absence was necessitated by the need to care for his wife, who was allegedly suffering from a mental disorder. He requested that his absence be considered sympathetically and on humanitarian grounds.
After examining the inquiry report and the explanation furnished by the appellant, the competent authority issued a memorandum dated 2 June 2016. Through this memorandum, the entire period of absence from 28 September 2015 to 26 February 2016 was declared dies non for all purposes except pensionary benefits.
However, the matter did not end there.
Initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings
Subsequently, IIT Delhi initiated formal disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. A charge-sheet dated 16 August 2016 was issued under Statute 13(9) of the IIT Delhi Statutes. The charge related to unauthorised absence during the same period already treated as dies non.
The charge memorandum was not confined merely to the five-month absence. It also referred to several earlier instances where the appellant had remained absent without authorisation. Although those previous absences had either been regularised or closed after warnings, the memorandum noted that despite repeated warnings, the appellant continued the pattern of unauthorised absence.
A departmental inquiry was conducted after providing the appellant an opportunity to participate. Upon completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report on 19 September 2017. The disciplinary authority, namely the Director of IIT Delhi, supplied the inquiry report to the appellant and issued a memorandum dated 9 November 2017 proposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. The appellant was invited to submit his representation against the inquiry findings and the proposed punishment.
After considering the inquiry report, the service record, and the appellant’s representation, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement through an order dated 18 January 2018.
Procedural History
The appellant challenged the disciplinary action through multiple proceedings. Initially, he filed W.P. (C) No. 5038/2018, which he later withdrew with liberty to file a fresh petition. Thereafter, he instituted W.P. (C) No. 7348/2018, challenging the show-cause notice dated 9 November 2017. The High Court disposed of the petition on 12 October 2018, granting him liberty to avail the statutory appellate remedy.
Pursuant thereto, the appellant preferred a statutory appeal before the Board of Governors of IIT Delhi. The Board dismissed the appeal on 8 April 2019 and affirmed the order of compulsory retirement.
The appellant then filed W.P. (C) No. 4161/2019 challenging both the disciplinary authority’s order and the appellate decision. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 26 February 2026. Aggrieved by that judgment, the appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench.
Issues Before the Court
The principal issue before the Division Bench was:
Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and imposition of compulsory retirement for unauthorised absence amounted to double punishment when the same period had already been declared dies non.
The Court also considered:
- Whether the disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice.
- Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate.
- Whether the appellate authority had mechanically affirmed the disciplinary authority’s decision without independent consideration.
Appellant’s Contentions
The appellant’s primary argument rested upon the doctrine against double punishment. He contended that the competent authority had already taken action concerning the unauthorised absence by treating the period as dies non through the memorandum dated 2 June 2016. According to him, this action effectively constituted punishment for the misconduct. Consequently, initiation of fresh disciplinary proceedings and subsequent imposition of compulsory retirement amounted to punishing him twice for the same offence.
The appellant further argued that:
- The disciplinary authority failed to meaningfully consider his representation against the proposed punishment.
- The appellate authority merely endorsed the disciplinary authority’s decision without independent application of mind.
- He had sufficient leave at his credit, and therefore his absence could have been regularised rather than being treated as misconduct warranting compulsory retirement.
- The penalty imposed was arbitrary and grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
Respondent’s Contentions
IIT Delhi opposed the appeal and defended the disciplinary action. The Institute argued that declaring a period as dies non was merely an administrative step necessary for maintaining service records and determining the service consequences of an employee’s absence. It did not amount to punishment for misconduct.
The respondent maintained that:
- The order treating the period as dies non only addressed service accounting and salary consequences.
- The subsequent disciplinary proceedings were directed against the misconduct of unauthorised absence.
- Leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right and requires sanction by the competent authority.
- Unauthorised absence constitutes serious misconduct attracting major penalties, including compulsory retirement.
- The disciplinary proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with Statute 13(9), and principles of natural justice were fully complied with.
Court’s Analysis
Meaning and Effect of Dies Non
The Division Bench devoted considerable attention to explaining the concept of dies non. The Court observed that in service jurisprudence, declaration of a period as dies non essentially means that the employee will not be entitled to salary for that period on the principle of “No Work No Pay.” It is an administrative mechanism employed to account for periods during which the employee was absent without authorisation.
The Court noted that when an employee remains absent, the employer must pass some order indicating how the period is to be reflected in service records. Otherwise, the absence may create uncertainty regarding continuity of service, seniority, pay fixation, pension, and other service benefits.
Accordingly, the memorandum dated 2 June 2016 merely served the purpose of recording and accounting for the appellant’s absence in service records. It did not regularise the absence nor did it condone the misconduct.
Whether Dies Non Amounts to Punishment
The Court rejected the appellant’s central argument by holding that the treatment of a period as dies non is not a punishment recognised under the IIT Delhi Statutes.
The Bench examined Statute 13(9), which enumerates the penalties that may be imposed in disciplinary proceedings, including censure, withholding of increments, recovery of losses, reduction in rank, compulsory retirement, removal, and dismissal. The Court observed that a declaration of a period as dies non does not figure anywhere in the list of penalties.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the memorandum dated 2 June 2016 did not amount to the infliction of any penalty. Therefore, the subsequent disciplinary proceedings and order of compulsory retirement could not be characterised as double punishment.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Dr. P.L. Singla (2008) 8 SCC 469. In that case, the Supreme Court explained that accounting for a period of absence is essentially an administrative exercise. The Supreme Court further held that if an employer condones unauthorised absence by sanctioning leave retrospectively, disciplinary proceedings ordinarily cannot thereafter be initiated for the same misconduct.
However, the Delhi High Court distinguished the present case on the ground that the appellant’s absence had never been regularised through the sanction of leave. Instead, it had merely been treated as dies non. Since no leave had been granted and no condonation of misconduct had occurred, IIT Delhi remained entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
Principles of Natural Justice
The Court also rejected the appellant’s challenge based on an alleged violation of natural justice. The Bench found that the appellant had been given ample opportunity to participate in the inquiry proceedings. He was permitted to submit explanations, participate in the inquiry, receive a copy of the inquiry report, and make representations against the proposed punishment.
In these circumstances, the Court held that there was no procedural unfairness warranting judicial interference.
Decision
The Division Bench agreed entirely with the findings of the learned Single Judge and upheld the order of compulsory retirement. The Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and held that:
- Declaration of unauthorised absence as dies non is not a punishment.
- Such declaration does not regularise the absence.
- It does not prevent the employer from initiating disciplinary proceedings for misconduct.
- The appellant was not subjected to double punishment.
- The disciplinary proceedings complied with principles of natural justice.
Although the appeal was dismissed, the Court directed IIT Delhi to release any retirement benefits payable to the appellant within two months.
Conclusion
The decision in Ashok Kumar v. IIT Delhi is an important reaffirmation of established principles of service law. The Delhi High Court clarified that treating a period of unauthorised absence as dies non is merely an administrative accounting measure and not a disciplinary penalty. Consequently, an employer is not barred from subsequently initiating disciplinary proceedings for the misconduct underlying such absence.
The judgment draws a clear distinction between service-record management and disciplinary action, ensuring that administrative treatment of absence does not inadvertently operate as condonation of misconduct.
By relying upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Punjab v. Dr. P.L. Singla, the Court emphasised that only the regularisation of absence through sanctioned leave can potentially preclude disciplinary action. Mere declaration of dies non neither condones misconduct nor extinguishes the employer’s authority to impose penalties.
The ruling therefore serves as an important precedent for public employers and disciplinary authorities dealing with cases of prolonged unauthorised absence, while also reinforcing the principle that disciplinary action must be assessed independently of administrative service-record adjustments.