01Facts
Sunil Kumar, a clerk/cashier at Civil Hospital, Bhiwani, challenged a charge-sheet issued under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016, arising from allegations that he demanded and received payments from TMS staff in connection with release of incentive amounts
¶ 1–2He contended that the money had been received by another employee and that the inquiry denied him an effective opportunity to defend himself
¶ 3–4The State opposed the petition, relying on the inquiry findings and evidence of transfers to the petitioner
¶ 5The Court considered the inquiry report, staff statements, and the petitioner’s admitted participation in the inquiry
¶ 7–1102Issues
i.Whether the charge-sheet and consequential disciplinary proceedings should be quashed because the inquiry evidence was allegedly misread and did not support the allegations against the petitioner
¶ 3, 7–10ii.Whether the inquiry violated the principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner an effective opportunity to defend himself
¶ 4, 1103Law Applied
The charge-sheet was issued under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016, and the petitioner invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
¶ 1, 4The Court considered whether the petitioner had substantiated his challenge to the charge-sheet and whether the inquiry record showed a denial of natural justice; it relied on the evidence and procedural history in the record.
¶ 6–12The judgment cites no precedent and does not set out a broader test governing judicial review of charge-sheets
¶ 6–1204Reasoning
The Court rejected the claim that the inquiry officer had misread the evidence. It found that TMS staff statements described payments to the petitioner and payments made to a medical hall on his instructions, and that the inquiry report treated those statements and transaction receipts as supporting the complaint
¶ 7–9The Court also noted that the petitioner did not dispute that online credit transactions had been made to his account
¶ 10On natural justice, the Court relied on the petitioner’s own pleaded account that he appeared before the inquiry officer, requested and received the complaint, submitted a reply, and attended subsequent dates; it therefore found his allegation of inadequate opportunity unsubstantiated
¶ 1105Holding
The Court held that the petitioner had established no ground to quash the charge-sheet or the consequential proceedings.
¶ 10–14The writ petition was dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of
¶ 10–14Original Court PDF
Sunil KumarvsState Of Haryana And Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
