Dalbir Singh Duggal vs State Of Haryana And Ors
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
IN TH
221
Dalbir Sing
State of Ha
CORAM: HON
Present:- Mr. R
Mr. K
for th
Mr. P
NIDHI GUPTA, J .
HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AN
D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-1339-
Date of De
-2026 (O&M)
ecision:- 11.11.2026
h Duggal
… Petitioner
Versus
aryana and others
... Respondents
N'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
A
R. N. Bharti, Advocate and
Kunal Bharti, Advocate
he petitioner.
Priyavrat Parashar, Asstt. A.G. Ha
aryana.
Prese
ent Civil Writ Petition under Ar
ticles 226of the Constitution of
f
India has been file
ed by the petitioner seeking the
e following reliefs: -
i) issue a writ in t
the nature of mandamus summo
oning the records of the case;
ii) Issue a writ in
the nature of Certiorari quash
ing the suspension order dated
d
01.12.2022 (Anne
exure P-1) being contrary to the
e 2016 Rules, as per which the
e
suspension perio
od beyond 90 days is void if n
no disciplinary proceedings are
e
commenced, for t
the reasons stated in the presen
nt petition;
iii) Issue a writ in
the nature of Certiorari quashi
ng the Punishment order dated
d
10.01.2025 (Anne
exure P-10) which has been iss
sued in an illegal and arbitrary
y
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-1339-2026 (
manner, without
(O&M) - 2 -
t considering the reply of the
petitioner and is violation of
f
principle of natur
ral justice;
iv) Issue a writ in
n the nature of certiorari quash
hing the impugned order dated
d
11.11.2025 (Anne
exure P-17) whereby despite the
e charge sheet issued for major
r
punishment havi
ng been dropped and convert
ted, in an illegal and arbitrary
y
manner the suspe
ension period has been treated a
as not on service;
v) Issue a writ in t
the nature of Mandamus directi
ing the respondents for treating
g
the complete su
uspension period as duty peri
iod and to release all service
e
benefits including
g arrears of pay alongwith intere
est @ 18% per annum alongwith
h
continuity and ot
ther service benefits such as pr
romotion from the date juniors
s
have been exten
ded the benefit of promotion a
alongwith salary of the post of
f
Tehsildar from the
e said date etc., in the interest o
of justice.
2. Brief
f facts of the case are in chronolo
ogical order are as under:-
1998: Petitioner
was appointed as Patwari in t
the respondent-Department of
f
Revenue and Disa
aster Management, Haryana in t
he year 1998.
21.08.2017: Petit
tioner was promoted as Naib
Tehsildar on 21.08.2017. From
m
17.02.2021 to 0
1.12.2022, petitioner discharge
ed duties of Naib Tehsildar at
t
Ambala City.
01.07.2022: Vide
order dated 01.07.2022, petitio
oner was given additional charge
e
of Sub Tehsil Shah
hzadpur.
01.12.2022: Vide
order dated 01.12.2022 (Annex
xure P-1), petitioner was placed
d
under suspension
n without assigning any reason.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-1339-2026 (
18.01.2024: Pet
(O&M) - 3 -
itioner had submitted RTI
application dated 18.01.2024
4
(Annexure P-2)
seeking reasons, notings, an
nd records pertaining to the
e
petitioner's susp
pension and denial of promot
tionas, during his suspension,
,
juniors to petition
ner were being promoted as Teh
hsildar.
24.01.2024: With
hout replying to the abovesaid a
application, charge sheet dated
d
24.01.2024 (Ann
nexure P-3) was issued to the
e petitioner for being grossly
y
negligent in his d
uty and showing himself to be
an irresponsible officer; and for
r
disobeying order
rs by leaving his post as Nai
ib Tehsildar, Shahzadpur on a
scheduled docum
ment registration day (12.07.202
22) without prior permission or
r
handing over of c
charge; which left the office locke
ed and caused public ruckus.
22.02.2024: The
reafter, suspension order was
s revoked on 16.02.2024; and
d
endorsed on 22.0
02.2024 (Annexure P-5), petition
er was reinstated in service.
30.07.2024: How
wever, vide order dated 30.07.2
2024 (Annexure P-6), juniors to
o
the petitioner w
were promoted; while disciplina
ary proceedings were still kept
t
pending against t
he petitioner.
23.08.2024: Sinc
ce no action was taken by th
e respondents, petitioner had
d
approached this
Court by way of CWP No. 2051
1 of 2024 to drop charge sheet
t
against the petiti
oner and grant consequential b
benefit of promotion as given to
o
his juniors. The
said writ petition came to be
disposed of vide order dated
d
23.08.2024 (Anne
exure P-9) on the statement ma
ade by the respondents that the
e
charge sheet shal
l be decided within a period of f
four months.
10/13.01.2025: A
As respondent failed to comply
y with the above undertaking,
,
petitioner filed C
COCP No. 609 of 2025; in which
h respondents filed compliance
e
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-1339-2026 (
affidavit dated 17
(O&M) - 4 -
7.02.2025 (Annexure P-11) stati
ing that charge sheet had been
decided vide orde
er dated 10/13.01.2025 (Annexu
ure P-10).
24.02.2025: Cons
sequently, COCP was dismissed a
as not pressed vide order dated
d
24.02.2025 (Anne
exure P-12) with liberty to the
petitioner to avail appropriate
e
remedy against th
he order dated 10.01.2025. The
reafter, petitioner made several
l
representations t
to the respondents to extend
d benefit of promotion to the
e
petitioner as he h
had been illegally kept in suspens
sion for a period of 419 days.
15/29.07.2025: V
Vide order dated 15/29.07.2025
5 (Annexure P-15), respondents
s
treated suspensio
on period of the petitioner as le
eave of the kind due in terms of
f
Rule 91 of the Ha
ryana Civil Services (General) Ru
ules, 2016.
05.08.2025: Petit
tioner sent reply dated 05.08
8.2025 (Annexure P-16) to the
e
above.
11.11.2025: Res
pondents passed order dated
d 11.11.2025 (Annexure P-17)
)
treating suspensio
on period from 01.12.2022 to 22
2.02.2024 as non-duty period.
15.12.2025: Hen
ce, the present writ petition.
3. It is
inter alia submitted by the ld.
counsel for the petitioner that
t
the suspension o
order dated 01.12.2022 which
culminated into reinstatement
t
vide order dated
16.02.2024 endorsed on 22.02
2.2022 was illegal and arbitrary
y
as the suspension
n without any charge sheet bey
yond 90 days is per-se void and
d
illegal. Hence, an
ny action based upon the said
suspension even non-grant of
f
benefit of servic
ce emoluments after 90 days
on the basis of void order is
s
arbitrary and viol
ative of Article 14 of the Constit
tution.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-1339-2026 (
4. It is
(O&M) - 5 -
s further submitted that the
chargesheet was issued on
24.01.2024 on flim
msy grounds whereas the suspe
nsion was issued on 01.12.2022
2
and the 90 days
period had lapsed 02.03.2023
3 and hence, any restriction of
f
benefits based u
upon the said suspension ord
der which becomes void upon
n
passing of 90 day
s period is illegal and arbitrary.
5. Ld. c
counsel submits that the suspen
nsion was a politically motivated
d
is also evident f
from the fact that from the
extract of the noting file on
n
17.10.2023 (Ann
nexure P-19) it has been no
oted that the petitioner was
s
suspended on t
he basis of the note receive
d from the Minister of State
e
(Revenue), throug
gh the charges against the petiti
ioner are not clear. The said fact
t
makes it eviden
nt that the suspension was
illegal and arbitrary and the
e
subsequent charg
ge sheet issued on the same is a
also a cover up to legitimize the
e
illegal suspension
n which was spread for more tha
an year contrary to the rules.
6. It is
submitted that the order of pun
nishment dated 10.01.2025 is a
a
non-speaking ord
der as no reasons are forthcom
ming for issuance of the minor
r
penalty as once
it has come on record that the
e petitioner had duly attended
d
duty on the conc
cerned date. The order suffers f
from vice of non-application of
f
mind.
7. It is
submitted that the order of p
unishment of minor penalty of
f
warning is itself
illegal as no reasons are forthc
coming as to how and in what
t
manner the warn
ning letter has been issued onc
e the petitioner had submitted
d
the proof that he
e was present on the alleged dat
te and the sale deeds were duly
y
executed on the
alleged date depicting the abs
sence. It is contended that the
e
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-1339-2026 (
orders have been
(O&M) - 6 -
n passed only to justify the illeg
al order of suspension which in
n
any case after pas
ssage of the period of 90 days of
f time was redundant and void.
8. It is s
submitted that the respondents
had issued the charge sheet for
r
imposition of maj
jor penalty and without affordin
ng any opportunity of hearing or
r
any enquiry as p
per the procedure prescribed in
n Punishment and Appeal Rules
s
have unilaterally
imposed the minor penalty of
warning yet again without any
y
opportunity of he
earing only to justify the illegal s
uspension.
9. It is
reiterated that the impugne
ed orders of suspension and
d
punishment are m
mala fide and motivated, being i
instigated at the instance of the
e
Minister of State
(Revenue), which is evident fro
om the noting dated 17.10.2023
3
(Annexure P-19) t
that the petitioner was illegally p
placed under suspension on the
e
asking of the Min
nister of State (Revenue).
10. Acco
ordingly, prayed that the presen
nt writ petition be allowed and
that “ a writ in th
he nature of Certiorari be issue
ed for quashing the suspension
n
order dated 01.12
2.2022 (Annexure P-1) being con
ntrary to the 2016 Rules, as per
r
which the suspen
sion period beyond 90 days is vo
oid if no disciplinary proceedings
s
are commenced, f
for the reasons stated in the pre
esent petition; and a writ in the
e
nature of Certio
orari be issued for quashing
the Punishment order dated
d
10.01.2025 (Anne
exure P-10) which has been iss
sued in an illegal and arbitrary
y
manner, without
considering the reply of the pe
etitioner; and also a writ in the
e
nature of certiora
ari be issued for quashing the im
mpugned order dated 11.11.2025
5
(Annexure P-17) w
whereby despite the charge she
eet issued for major punishment
t
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-1339-2026 (
having been dro
(O&M) - 7 -
opped and converted, in an ille
egal and arbitrary manner the
e
suspension period
d has been treated as not on ser
vice.”
11. Per
contra, ld. State counsel has
opposed submissions of the
e
petitioner and ha
as vehemently denied that the
impugned order of suspension
n
was at the behes
st of the Minister of State (Reve
nue). It is contended that there
e
is no basis to t
the allegation of the petitione
er that the Minister of State
e
(Revenue) was in
imical against the petitioner. Ev
en petitioner has not been able
e
to substantiate h
is said allegation. It is submitte
d that in the written statement
t
dated 07.08.2026
6 filed on behalf of respondent N
Nos. 1 to 3, cogent reasons have
e
been given as t
to why suspension of the pe
etitioner was necessitated, as
s
petitioner had fa
iled to do his duty. It is submitt
ted that due reasons have been
n
given in the wr
ritten statement as to what l
led to the suspension of the
e
petitioner; conseq
quently, impugned orders suffer
r from no error and present writ
t
petition deserves
s to be dismissed.
12. No o
other argument is made on be
half of learned counsel for the
e
parties. I have he
eard ld. counsel and perused the
e case file and record in detail. I
I
find no merit in th
he submissions advanced on beh
half of the petitioner.
13. It is
the contention of the petitione
er that the petitioner has been
n
suspended at the
e instigation of the Minister of
State (Revenue). In this regard,
,
the petitioner ha
as relied upon file noting (Anne
exure P-19). However, the said
d
contention of the
e petitioner is on the face of it
without basis as the petitioner
r
was placed unde
er suspension vide order date
ed 01.12.2022 (Annexure P-1);
whereas the file
e noting relied upon by the p
petitioner is dated 17.10.2023
3
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-1339-2026 (
(Annexure P-19).
(O&M) - 8 -
Thus, the allegation of the pe
etitioner that the suspension of
f
the petitioner wa
as at the behest of the Minister, i
is baseless.
14. Even
n otherwise, the said contention
n of the petitioner is liable to be
e
rejected as the H
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
e of Puranjeet Singh v. Union
n
Territory, Chandi
igarh and others , reported as 1
1995 (1) S.C.T. 65 , has held that
t
notings in depart
mental files do not create any ri
ight in favour of an employee. It
t
has further been
held that only an order passed a
and conveyed by the competent
t
authority creates
s a right in favour of an empl
oyee. As such, reliance of the
e
petitioner upon t
he alleged file notings (Annexur
e P-19) is untenabIe.
15. Even
n further, there is no merit to th
he petitioner's allegation, as the
e
respondents in t
their written statement dated
07.08.2026 filed on behalf of
f
respondent Nos.
1 to 3, have given cogent reaso
ns as to why the petitioner was
s
suspended. The r
elevant para is reproduced as un
nder:-
“2. T
That, in very brief as per the r
report presented by the Deputy
y
Com
missioner, Ambala, since Sh
h. Amit Singh, NaibTehsildar,
Shah
hzadpur was on medical leave,
, vide order number 299/HRA,
date
d 04-07-2022 of the Deputy
y Commissioner, Ambala, the
e
petit
tioner was given additional cha
arge of Sub Tehsil, Shahzadpur
r
from
m 04-07-2022 to 17-07-2022. In
n Sub Tehsil, Shahzadpur, two
o
days
s in week i.e., Tuesday and F
Friday fixed for registration of
f
docu
uments, thus 12.07.2022 (Tuesda
ay) was fixed for registration of
f
docu
uments. Vide Report No. 874, o
of Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil),
Nara
aiangarh, dated 13-07-2022, it
was stated that the petitioner
r
stopp
ped working in Sub-Tehsil, Sha
ahzadpur even before the new
w
office
er Mr. Mahendra Singh submitt
ted his presence report and due
e
to th
his many people gathered at Su
ub-Tehsil, Shahzadpur on 12-07-
-
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-1339-2026 (
(O&M) - 9 -
2022
2 and the office was locked. In
this way, the petitioner left the
e
char
rge of NaibTehsildar, Shahza
adpur, without taking prior
r
perm
mission of higher officials and bef
fore the new officer took charge
e
of Na
aibTehsildar, Shahzadpur. Apart
from this, it was found that the
e
Sub
Divisional Officer (Civil), Naraia
angarh instructed the petitioner
r
to re
each Tehsil Office, Shahzadpur to
o get the lock opened and do the
e
regis
stration work but the petition
ner sent a non encumbrance
e
certif
ficate on the mobile of the
Sub Divisional Officer (Civil),
Nara
aiangarh and did not reach Sub T
Tehsil Office, Shahzadpur, due to
o
whic
ch anger increased among the p
ublic and an incident like ruckus
s
took
k place. Thus, the petitioner sho
owed negligence in his conduct
t
and d
disobeyed the orders of his supe
erior officers.”
16. From
m the above facts, it is clear
r that the contention of the
e
petitioner that h
is suspension was malafide an
nd motivated, is without merit.
.
Moreover, suspen
nsion is not punishment and is o
only a precautionary measure to
o
disable the empl
oyee from creating any impedi
ment in the pending inquiry or
r
make any attemp
pt to scuttle inquiry or investig
gation being conducted against
t
him. Thus, the
petitioner was put under sus
spension as an administrative
e
precautionary me
easure while inquiring into his
misconduct. In any event, the
e
petitioner was re
einstated vide order dated 22.02
2.2024 without prejudice to the
e
disciplinary proce
eedings pending against him.
17. It ha
as further been argued by the
e petitioner that the order of
f
punishment date
ed 10.01.2025 (Annexure P-10
0), was passed converting the
e
charge-sheet to R
Rule 8 and a minor penalty of 're
ecorded warning to be careful in
n
future ' was illega
al and arbitrary as it was bas
sed on an illegal and malafide
e
suspension. How
wever, they said argument of
the petitioner is liable to be
e
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-1339-2026 (
rejected in view
(O&M) - 10 -
of the facts noted above. More
eover, the order of punishment
t
was awarded in c
consideration of the record and
the reply filed by the petitioner
r
against the charg
ges. The respondents have cate
gorically stated in their written
n
statement that af
fter receiving reply from the peti
itioner, punishment order dated
d
10.01.2025/13.01
1.2025 (Annexure P10) was pass
sed “…… converting charge sheet
t
to Rule 8 and a m
minor penalty of "recorded warn
ning to be careful in future" was
s
awarded. In case
e of "B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union o
of India", AIR 1996 SC 484, the
e
Hon'ble Apex Cou
urt has held that the disciplinar
ry authority is the sole judge of
f
facts. Where app
eal is presented, the appellate a
authority has co-extensive power
r
to re-appreciate
the evidence or the nature of
f punishment. In a disciplinary
y
inquiry the strict
proof of legal evidence and fi
indings on that evidence is not
t
relevant. Adequa
acy and reliability of evidence
e cannot be permitted to be
e
canvassed before
e the Court/Tribunal. Therefore, t
the adequacy and quality of the
e
evidences cannot
t be assailed and disputed before
e the Hon'ble Court.”
18. The
record further reveals that there
eafter, consent of the petitioner
r
was sought for tr
eating his suspension period as
leave of the kind due; however,
,
the petitioner ref
fused for the same. Consequent
tly, vide order dated 11.11.2025
5
(Annexure P-17),
the period of suspension was tr
reated as a 'non-duty' period for
r
the following reas
sons as recorded in the order da
ated 11.11.2025: -
“Wh
ereas, the delinquent officer has
s specifically denied adjustment
t
of h
his suspension period against
leave of the kind due in his
s
repre
esentation dated 29.07.2025 a
and 05.08.2025, therefore, no
o
othe
er option remains except to trea
at the suspension period of Sh.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-1339-2026 (
(O&M) - 11 -
Dalb
bir Singh Duggal, the then Naib
Tehsildar, Ambala City as "non-
-
duty
y".
Now,
w, after examining the records, un
ndersigned has decided that the
e
susp
ension period i.e. 01.12.2022 to
o 22.02.2024 of Sh. Dalbir Singh
h
Dugg
gal, the then Naib Tehsildar, Am
mbala City be treated as "non-
-
duty
y" period.”
19. Thus
s, no error can be found in the im
mpugned orders.
20. The
contention of the petitioner th
hat the disciplinary inquiry was
s
initiated against t
the petitioner only to deprive h
him of his rightful promotion is
s
also not made ou
ut, as name of the petitioner wa
as not considered for promotion
n
as another cha
arge sheet No. 2980-Estb.-5
5-2020/217 dated 08.01.2021
1
(Annexure R-3) u
under Rule 7 of Haryana Civil S
Service (Punishment & Appeal)
)
Rules, 2016 had
been issued against the petitio
oner and in that matter inquiry
y
officer was appoi
inted. In the above said charge
sheet, punishment order dated
d
03.02.2026 has b
been passed directing stoppage
of two annual increments with
h
cumulative effect
t. The aforesaid disciplinary pro
oceedings/order of punishment
t
dated 3.2.2026 ha
as been challenged by the petit
ioner in connected CWP-12222-
-
2026; which has
been disposed of by this Court
by separate order of even date.
Therefore, the cla
aim of the petitioner is wrong an
nd misleading.
21. Even
n further, the record bears out t
that the claim of petitioner that
t
he has impeccabl
e record is patently false. The st
tatus of various pending matters
s
against the petitio
oner is as follows: -
Sr. No
o. Pending Proceedings
In one matter on dated 03
3.02.2026 Sh. Dalbir Singh
1.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-1339-2026 (
(O&M) - 12 -
Duggal has been punished
d with stoppage of two
increments with cumulative
e effect for which charge
sheet was issued vide No. 29
980-Estb.-5-2020/217 dated
08.01.2021.
In FIR No. 272 dated 02.08.20
020 sanction of prosecution
2.
has been granted against
the petitioner vide order
dated 24.03.2025.
In one another matter charg
esheet under Rule 7 of HCS
3
(Punishment & Appeal) Rule
es, 2016 has been issued to
the petitioner vide Mem
morandum No. 1420-E-4-
2026/4186, dated 18.05.2026
6.
In one another matter charg
gesheet under Rule 8 of the
4.
HCS (Punishment & Appeal) R
Rules, 2016 has been issued
to the petitioner vide Me
morandum No. 1461-E-4-
2026/4396, dated 27.05.2026
6.
In one matter decision ha
as been taken to initiate
5.
disciplinary proceedings un
nder Rule 7 of the HCS
(Punishment & Appeal) R
ules, 2016 and draft of
chargesheet is awaited.
22. Ld. c
counsel for the petitioner is una
ble to dispute or controvert the
e
abovesaid legal
and factual position. Accordin
ngly, the present writ petition
n
stands dismissed.
.
23. Pend
ding application(s), if any, also st
ands disposed of.
11.11.2026
Neelam
( N
NIDHI GUPTA )
JUDGE
Wheth
Wheth
her speaking /reasoned Yes / N
her Reportable Yes / N
No
No
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document