THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Writ Petition Nos.26884 and 29399 of 2010 COMMON ORDER (Per Sri K.G.Shankar, J) The petitioner seeks for certiorari to call for the records relating to order dated 22.09.2009 passed by the 4th respondent and the consequential proceedings dated 03.10.2009 issued by the 5th respondent and to quash the same. In the process, the petitioner seeks for setting aside of the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, passed in O.A.No.12242 of 2009, dated 05.10.2010. 2. The petitioner was a Junior Assistant. He joined in service in 1982. He was promoted as Senior Assistant in 2005. As he was suffering from penalty, many of his juniors were promoted over and above him. The penalty imposed against the petitioner was subsequently set aside by the concerned authority. The pay of the petitioner was regularized by the 5th respondent through proceedings, dated 09.06.2008. However, the petitioner was not promoted as Senior Assistant along with the employees, who were juniors to him in the cadre of Junior Assistant. 3. The 4th respondent originally imposed the penalty of withholding of one increment for two years without cumulative effect and also censure against the petitioner through the proceedings dated 05.03.2005. The case of the learned Government Pleader is that the 3rd respondent directed the 4th respondent through memo dated 18.07.2005 to treat the period of absence as ‘dies-non’ for all purposes. The petitioner on the other hand contended that ‘dies-non’ was not imposed against him and that after the penalty imposed against him was revoked, ‘dies-non’ could not now be imposed as a punitive action against him. 4. Thus, the basic case of the petitioner is: The petitioner absented from duty unauthorisedly for over two years. Punishment of censure and withholding of two increments was ordered by the 4th respondent through proceedings, dated 05.03.2005. The petitioner preferred administrative appeal therefrom. Through orders dated 28.02.2007, the appeal was allowed. The punishments recorded against the petitioner were set aside. As the pay of the petitioner was not fixed correctly, he preferred O.A. in 2009. Consequent upon the orders in the O.A., the pay was re-fixed. Request for the regularization of the services of the petitioner was then rejected. The competent authority decided to invoke ‘dies-non’. Hence, the petitioner filed O.A.No.12242 of 2009. The same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner seeks for a writ of certiorari. 5 . The curious case is that a memo was issued by the competent authority on 18.07.2005, wherein Clause V reads thus: “ The J.A. has already been admitted to duty. Hence, the period of entire unauthorized absence may be treated as ‘Dies-non’ for all purposes as per F.R.18, duly setting aside the minor punishment imposed on the J.A”. The controversy is with reference to Clause V of the memo dated 18.07.2005. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the competent authority did not treat the period of absence as ‘dies-non’, but has accorded permission to the concerned authority to treat the period of absence as ‘dies-non’. The claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the period of absence has not been treated as ‘dies-non’, the penalty of ‘dies-non’ cannot be imposed at this stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the memo dated 28.02.2007, wherein the Superintendent Engineer has recorded that the absence of the petitioner from duty was not unauthorized. The petitioner was considered to be on leave after due permission. 7. The learned Government Pleader however pointed out that even the Head of the Department has no right to grant leave to a Government servant beyond six months and that it is the prerogative of the Government alone to grant leave, if it is for a period of more than six months. The learned Government Pleader further contended that the memo dated 28.02.2007, is a mere reference to the observations of the Superintendent Engineer and that in fact, the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from duty. 8. There appears to be a gray area about the unauthorized absence of the petitioner from duty and whether his absence from duty was already treated as ‘dies-non’ or otherwise. These aspects deserve to be clarified by the concerned authority upon the representation of the petitioner. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the concerned authority, namely the 3rd respondent, and make a representation regarding the imposition of ’dies-non’ during the period of his absence. The 3rd respondent shall dispose of such representation of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the 3rd respondent, within two weeks from today regarding the imposition or the non-imposition of ‘dies-non’ against him for the period of his absence from duty. The 3rd respondent shall dispose of the said representation, within a period of four weeks thereafter. Consequently, the orders of the Tribunal stand set aside. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:29.03.2011. sj