01Facts
The petitioner, appointed as a Patwari in 1998 and promoted as Naib Tehsildar in 2017, was given additional charge of Sub-Tehsil Shahzadpur in July 2022.
pp. 2–4, 9–10He was suspended on 1 December 2022.
pp. 2–4, 9–10A charge-sheet was issued on 24 January 2024, and he was reinstated in February 2024.
pp. 2–4, 9–10His challenge to the disciplinary proceedings was disposed of after the respondents undertook to decide the charge-sheet within four months.
pp. 2–4, 9–10In January 2025, the charge-sheet was converted to proceedings under Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 2016, and a recorded warning was imposed.
pp. 2–4, 9–10The respondents later treated the suspension period, 1 December 2022 to 22 February 2024, as non-duty after the petitioner declined adjustment against leave.
pp. 2–4, 9–10He sought to quash the suspension, punishment and non-duty orders, and claimed service and promotion benefits.
pp. 2–4, 9–1002Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner’s suspension and the treatment of the suspension period as non-duty were unlawful, including on the ground that the charge-sheet was issued more than 90 days after suspension.
pp. 4–6, 9–10ii.2. Whether the punishment order imposing a recorded warning was liable to be quashed for want of proper consideration of the petitioner’s reply or breach of natural justice.
pp. 5–6, 9–10iii.3. Whether the suspension and disciplinary action were mala fide and intended to deny the petitioner promotion.
pp. 6–8, 10–1103Law Applied
The Court referred to the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016, Rule 91, in connection with adjustment of suspension as leave, and the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 2016, including Rules 7 and 8, in relation to disciplinary proceedings.
pp. 7–10It applied the principle in Puranjeet Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1995 (1) S.C.T. 65, that departmental file notings do not create an employee’s right; such a right arises from an order passed and communicated by the competent authority.
pp. 7–10It also relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 484, for the limited scope of judicial review of disciplinary findings: the disciplinary authority evaluates the facts and evidence, and a court does not ordinarily reappraise their adequacy or sufficiency.
pp. 7–10The judgment describes suspension as a precautionary administrative measure, rather than a punishment.
pp. 7–1004Reasoning
The Court found no substantiation for the allegation that the suspension was politically motivated.
pp. 7–11The file noting relied on by the petitioner was dated 17 October 2023, after the suspension order of 1 December 2022, and in any event did not create an enforceable right.
pp. 7–11The respondents’ account was that the petitioner left the Shahzadpur office before the incoming officer took charge on a scheduled registration day, leaving the office locked and causing public disruption; the Court accepted this as a sufficient administrative basis for suspension.
pp. 7–11It further noted that reinstatement was without prejudice to pending disciplinary proceedings.
pp. 7–11Applying the limited-review principle in B.C. Chaturvedi, the Court declined to re-examine the evidence underlying the recorded warning.
pp. 7–11It also found no error in the non-duty order, which followed the petitioner’s refusal to have the period adjusted against leave.
pp. 7–11The Court rejected the promotion-related mala fides claim, noting other disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
pp. 7–1105Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the challenges to the suspension, recorded warning or order treating the suspension period as non-duty.
p. 12It granted no service, pay or promotion relief; any pending applications were also disposed of.
p. 12Original Court PDF
Dalbir Singh DuggalvsState Of Haryana And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
