Dalbir Singh Duggal vs State Of Haryana And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
IN TH
221-1
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-12222
Date of De
2-2026 (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 und
er Articles 226/227 of the
e
Constitution of In
ndia has been filed by the petitio
oner for issuance of a writ in the
e
nature of Certio
orari for quashing of Punishm
ment Order dated 29.01.2026
6
(Annexure P-13),
whereby two increments have
been stopped with cumulative
e
effect.
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
ioner was promoted as Naib Teh
hsildar on 21.08.2017.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-12222-2026
12.02.2020 to 3
6 (O&M) - 2 -
31.07.2020: From 12.02.2020 t
to 31.07.2020, petitioner was
s
posted as Naib Te
ehsildar in Gurugram.
3. Ld. C
Counsel for the petitioner submit
ts that during the posting of the
e
petitioner as Na
aib Tehsildar, Gurugram, petitio
oner had registered numerous
s
instruments inclu
uding sale deeds as per law. Th
here was a huge uproar in the
e
State Assembly
that sale deeds were regist
ered in violation of Haryana
a
Development and
d Regulation of Urban Area Act
1975 (hereinafter referred to as
s
‘the 1975 Act’). C
Consequently, a preliminary inq
quiry was ordered by the State
e
Government; and
d Commissioner Gurugram had c
conducted a preliminary inquiry
y
in respect of offic
cers posted in Gurugram Divisio
n. In said inquiry Tehsildars and
d
Naib Tehsildars w
working in Gurugram division we
re found at fault. Petitioner was
s
also among them
m. It was alleged that petitione
er had registered sale deeds in
n
violation of the 19
975 Act. Upon enquiry, Commiss
sioner Gurugram had submitted
d
Report dated 2
24.07.2020 (Annexure P-1). P
Petitioner was placed under
r
suspension vide o
order dated 31.07.2020 (Annexu
ure P-2). Thereafter, chargesheet
t
dated 08.01.2021
1 (Annexure P-3) was issued to
o the petitioner. It was alleged
d
that he had regis
stered 310 sale deeds in respe
ect of agricultural land without
t
obtaining concur
rrence from office of District
Town and Country Planning.
.
Petitioner had s
submitted his explanation date
ed 02.07.2021 (Annexure P-4)
)
stating that he h
had registered sale deed in re
espect of land which was gair
r
mumkin.
4. Yet,
inquiry was initiated against th
he petitioner vide order dated
d
15.07.2021 (Anne
exure P-5). Ld. counsel submit
ts that the petitioner had filed
d
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-12222-2026
detailed reply d
6 (O&M) - 3 -
ated 18.02.2022 (Annexure P
-6) to the chargesheet giving
g
reasons for regis
tering such sale deeds. He stat
ted that land was already sold.
.
When it was furth
her sold, he registered sale deed
ds as per rules. He stated that in
n
all sale deeds nat
ture of land was already shown
as gair mumkin. So, he was not
t
supposed to go b
behind the already registered sa
ale deeds as nature of land was
s
already stood det
termined.
5. It is
submitted that without followi
ng due process of law, enquiry
y
report dated 14.0
03.2022 (Annexure P-7) was subm
mitted wherein all charges were
e
found to be pro
oved against the petitioner. E
Even in his personal hearing,
,
petitioner had tr
ied to explain the correct facts
s to the respondents, but to no
o
avail. Subsequent
tly, order of punishment dated 2
28.10.2022 (Annexure P-11) was
s
passed, withhold
ing two increments with cumula
ative effect.
6. Ld. C
Counsel submits that the aforesa
aid order dated 28.10.2022 was
s
not acted upon.
However, thereafter the State
Government felt annoyed with
h
petitioner and su
ddenly passed the impugned or
der dated 29.01.2026(Annexure
e
P-13), thereby ag
ain stopping his two increments
s with cumulative effect.
7. It is
submitted that impugned orde
er(s) (Annexure P-11 and P-13)
)
imposing punishm
ment upon the petitioner are u
unsustainable as per proviso to
o
Section 7A(a)(i) o
of the Haryana Development a
and Regulation of Urban Areas
s
(Amendment) Ac
t, 2017 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘2017 Act’), no 'no objection
n
certificate is requ
uired to be obtained for register
ring a sale deed, if the plot/land
d
is situated in a
colony for which a license ha
as been issued. In the case of
f
petitioner, no sa
le deed was registered in respe
ect of agricultural land. All the
e
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-12222-2026
sale deeds were
6 (O&M) - 4 -
e registered in respect of land
d which was already sold and
d
situated in a ga
air mumkin area. No action
was taken against those Sub
b
Registrars/Registr
rars who had initially registered
sale deeds.
8. It is s
submitted that it is also to be k
kept in mind that enquiry report
t
was submitted ag
gainst the petitioner in the yea
ar 2022, first punishment order
r
had been passe
d on 28.10.2022 but no acti
ion was taken on that order.
Department knew
w that nobody was at fault. But s
suddenly after a gap of almost 4
4
years another im
pugned punishment order was
passed which is basically illegal
l
because it was p
passed only to deny petitioner
r his promotion to the post of
f
Tehsildar. His AC
R's have also always been und
der the category of 'Good' and
d
'Very Good', ther
re has never been any kind of
allegation or indication of any
y
kind of improprie
ety during his entire tenure of se
rvice.
9. Acco
ordingly prays that the present w
writ petition be allowed and that
t
“a writ in the na
ature of Certiorari be issued for
quashing of Punishment Order
r
dated 29.01.2026
6 (Annexure P-13), whereby his
s two increments were stopped
d
cumulative effect
t.”
10. Per
contra , ld. State counsel h
has vehemently opposed the
e
submissions of t
the petitioner and has sought
dismissal of the present writ
t
petition on the p
reliminary objection that the pe
etitioner has failed to challenge
e
the inquiry report
t as also the order dated (Annex
xure P-11) whereby withholding
g
of two increment
ts with cumulative effect was p
proposed. Accordingly, prays for
r
dismissal of the w
writ petition.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-12222-2026
11. No o
6 (O&M) - 5 -
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.
12. The
present writ petition is liable
to be dismissed on the short
t
ground that the
petitioner has failed to challe
enge the inquiry report dated
d
14.03.2022 (Anne
exure P-7), as also the order dat
ed 28.10.2022 (Annexure P-11),
,
whereby punishm
ment of withholding of two incr
rements with cumulative effect
t
has been propose
ed. The petitioner has only chall
lenged the order of punishment
t
dated 29.01.2026
6 (Annexure P-13), whereby p
unishment of stopping of two
o
increments with
cumulative effect has been imp
posed. In this regard, reference
e
may be made to t
the judgment of the Hon'ble Su
preme Court in U.P. State Road
d
Transport Corpor
ration v. Vinod Kumar, (SC): La
aw Finder Doc Id #135575. The
e
relevant extract r
eads as under:-
“8. L
Labour Court, without appreciat
ting the fact that in the absence
e
of ch
hallenge to the legality or fair
rness of the inquiry report the
e
Cour
rt should be reluctant to eith
her interfere with the finding
g
recor
rded by the Punishing Authority
y or the quantum, held that the
e
char
rge of misappropriation has n
not been proved against the
e
respo
ondent and, thus, punishment o
of removal from service is harsh.
It su
ubstituted the punishment of
removal by stoppage of one
e
incre
ement without any cumul
lative effect and directed
d
reins
statement of respondent with fu
ull back-wages. The said award
d
was
published. The appellant challe
enged the said award by filing
g
Writ
Petition No. 603 (M/S) of 20
002 before the High Court of
f
Utta
ranchal at Nainital. The High C
Court, without appreciating the
e
fact
that once it was held that respo
ondent was carrying passengers
s
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-12222-2026
6 (O&M) - 6 -
with
out ticket and had also recovere
ed fare from 8 passengers which
h
was
a serious misconduct, upheld t
the order passed by the Labour
r
Cour
rt. It agreed with the findings rec
corded by the Labour Court that
t
punis
shment inflicted upon the re
espondent was excessive and
d
dispr
roportionate to the charges lev
velled/proved, but reduced the
e
back
k-wages to 50%. The award of th
he Labour Court was modified to
o
that
extent.”
Thus, the w
writ petition is liable to be dismis
ssed on this short ground itself.
13. Even
n otherwise, there is no merit to
o the present writ petition as in
n
the inquiry con
nducted against the petitione
er, vide inquiry report dated
14.03.2022 (Anne
exure P-7), it has been found th
hat the petitioner, when he was
s
posted as Sub-Re
egistrar, had registered 310 dee
eds in violation of the statutory
y
provisions of Sec
ction 7-A of the Act, 1975, betw
ween the period 07.02.2020 to
o
31.07.2020. Vide
e Inquiry report (Annexure P-7)
), charges were found to have
e
been proved aga
ainst the petitioner. In this re
egard, an FIR No. 0272 dated
d
02.08.2020 was a
also registered against the petitio
oner.
14. It is
further relevant to note that
petitioner has not denied the
e
registration of 31
10 deeds, however, in his defen
nce has stated that the land in
n
question was "Ga
air Mumkin", therefore, NOC was
s not required as a pre-requisite
e
condition under S
Section 7A of the Act, 1975. How
wever, a bare perusal of Section
n
7A of the Amend
dment Act, 2017 (as reproduced
d by the petitioner in para 12 of
f
the present writ
petition), shows that there is
no requirement to obtain NOC
C
only where the "G
Gair Mumkin" land is situated in
n a colony for which the license
e
has been Issued u
under Section 3 of Act, 1975; an
nd the copy of the layout plan of
f
the colony is subm
mitted with the application for re
egistration of land. Thus, NOC is
s
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.13 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-12222-2026
not required, not
6 (O&M) - 7 -
t only when the land is "Gair M
umkin"; but it is also necessary
y
that such land sh
ould be situated in a colony for
which a license has been issued
d
by the Competen
nt Authority. In the present cas
se, the petitioner has failed to
o
demonstrate that
t the deeds in question were of t
the approved colony.
15. As re
egards allegation of the petition
ner that similar situated persons
s
have been exone
erated, the same is without me
erit. As case of the petitioner is
s
distinguishable in
nasmuch as petitioner has been
unable to prove that the deeds
s
in question were
of the approved colony; and in
n case of non-approved colony,
,
the petitioner wa
as duty bound to seek the NOC
from Director concerned as per
r
the provisions of
Section 7A of the Act, 1975. Fu
urther, the petitioner has taken
n
the defence that
t petitioner was overworked, a
nd due to the workload, there
e
was some ineffici
iency. However, the said explana
ation is not satisfactory as it has
s
been established
d in the regular enquiry proce
edings that the petitioner has
s
deliberately non-
complied with the statutory pro
ovisions under Section 7A of the
e
Act, 1975.
16. The
petitioner is unable to disput
te or controvert the aforesaid
d
factual and lega
al position. Consequently, the
present writ petition stands
s
dismissed .
17. 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