Rajender Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus/certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure P-16), whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension with immediate effect and his head-quarter has been fixed at Rohtak at a distance of more than 90 kms from the present place of posting, being in violation of the governing Service Rules and the order being apparently mischievous and punitive and smirks of malice; and further for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits w.e.f. due date; and/or further for issuance of such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and fair play.

It is inter alia submitted by ld. counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had joined the respondent-Department as Patwari on contract basis w.e.f. 01.01.1998. Vide order dated 08.12.2003, Service of petitioner was regularized. Thereafter, Petitioner was promoted as Kanungo in the year 2014; and, thereafter, as Naib Tehsildar in the year 2019. Therefore, petitioner carries an impeccable service record of over 26 years.

It is submitted that however respondent No.5 is inimical towards the petitioner. Accordingly, soon after respondent no.5 joined the respondent-Department as Additional Director, Urban Estate Haryana, petitioner was transferred from LAO office Gurugram to LAO office Hisar vide order dated 12.05.2022. Thereafter on 07.11.2022, petitioner was transferred from Hisar to Rohtak; then vide order dated 24.05.2023 he was transferred back again from Rohtak to Hisar; and again, vide order dated 26.07.2023 he was transferred back from Hisar to Gurugram vide said transfer orders (Annexures P-2 to P-5).

Learned counsel submits that after about 1 and half months of joining the Department respondent No.5 had also obtained a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs from the petitioner. However, the said amount was never returned. After about 6 months, the said officer had again asked for some more money from the petitioner, which demand was turned down by the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that on account of same, the private respondent turned hostile to the petitioner and started nurturing ill-will and grudge against the petitioner and had been abusing his office to threaten and pressurize the petitioner to accept his illegal demands. It is submitted that the aforesaid frequent transfers of the petitioner from one place to another, were also affected due to hostility borne by the private respondent towards the petitioner. It is submitted that on 13.03.2024, the said private respondent had even sent photographs of tyres and shop calling upon the petitioner to purchase 4 tyres. Petitioner had purchased the said 4 tyres and delivered the same to the private respondent on 14.03.2024. Even the said money was never returned to the petitioner.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as a continuum of the above said malafide conduct of respondent no.5 towards the petitioner, on 18.07.2024, petitioner was issued Show Cause Notice (Annexure P-7) calling upon the petitioner to show cause for not having passed the Patwar exam, which was mandatory requirement as per the departmental rule. Petitioner had duly submitted his detailed reply dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure P-8) to the said Show Cause Notice. In the said reply, petitioner had pointed out to the authorities the illegal demands and threats extended by the private respondent to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is on account of the same hostility, vide Office Memo No.8405 dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-9), the respondent-Additional Director, Urban Estates Department, Haryana while referring to a 6-month-old letter dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure P-10) called upon LAO Gurugram to inform as to whether the status report sent vide aforesaid letter dated 19.06.2024 was issued with his/her permission or not. In case, the same has been sent without his/her permission, the LAO Office was directed to recommend disciplinary action against the concerned officer to the Directorate after issuing show cause notice.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in purported compliance of the aforesaid letter, the respondent LAO submitted its response dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-12) vide letter dated 07.01.2025 (Annexure P-11) stating that show cause notice was served upon petitioner on 08.11.2024 (Annexure P-13) and the same was replied to on 12.11.2024 (Annexure P-15), however the reply is not satisfactory. As such, letter has been written to Zonal Administrator-cum-Upper Director Urban Estates Haryana for disciplinary action.

It is contended that a perusal of the purported show cause notice dated 08.11.2024 (Annexure P-13) would show that the same pertained to the office memo dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure P-14) issued by LAO Office Gurugram and explanation was sought as to why the said status report was sent without permission or information of the Land Acquisition Officer Gurugram. In response, the petitioner had pointed out that the report/letter in question dated 26.07.2024 was verbally intimated to the LAO Gurugram and also that the said report was sent in pursuance of the verbal orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram and that the report was sent after bringing the said aspects to the due notice of the LAO Gurugram. It was also pointed out that the report is totally based on records and even LAO Gurugram himself had issued verbal orders for sending such reports on her behalf as being sought by the Head Quarters and/or other departments. It has also been stated that the petitioner was orally instructed by the LAO Urban Estates Gurugram to send TDR Certificates after taking his/her permission in the month of August 2024 whereafter the petitioner has not sent any such report. Accordingly, the petitioner requested for filing of the aforesaid show cause notice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though neither any factual or legal defect has been pointed out in the status report issued by the petitioner nor has any Govt. instructions or Rules of Business have been referred to show that the petitioner could not have issued the reports in question yet, the petitioner has been placed under suspension with immediate effect vide office order dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure P-16), without assigning any reasons and without referring to any enabling provision under the governing service rules which would empower the authorities to suspend the petitioner in the manner as aforesaid. Further, the Headquarter of the petitioner has also been arbitrarily fixed at Rohtak which is at a distance about 90 Kms from the present place of posting of the petitioner and would require at least 2-hours travel on each side with the sole intent of harassing the petitioner.

Learned counsel contends that as demonstrated above from the facts noted herein above, the impugned order is malicious and is without reason or justification for suspension of the petitioner. The same emanates from deliberate mischief being played by the private respondent due to personal grudge and vendetta against the petitioner. The impugned order is not based on exercise of sound administrative discretion and is in contravention of Rule 5 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal Rules, 2016). Even there is no complaint on the basis of which the said suspension order has been issued. The mischievous intent of the private respondent is evident from the frequent transfers inflicted upon the petitioner; whereas as per the prevalent practice, employee should not ordinarily be transferred mid-term. It is reiterated that the entire exercise has been initiated at the behest of private respondent in the purported exercise of power on behalf of the Additional Director, Urban Estates Haryana. In the present case, nothing is forthcoming from the record to substantiate the vague and general allegations levelled against the petitioner without material particulars and without any supporting evidence. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be allowed; and the impugned suspension order dated 13.01.2025 (P-16) be set aside.

Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner that he had issued a letter dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure P-10) without getting approval from the competent authority. It is submitted that before any further investigation could be made into the matter, the petitioner had approached this Court and vide order dated 24.01.2025, impugned order of suspension had been stayed by Coordinate Bench of this Court. As such, allegations made against the petitioner could not be looked into. It is submitted that in any event, suspension is not a punishment. She accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.

No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions of the petitioner.

It is the contention of the petitioner as averred in para 5 and 7 of the present Writ Petition that the impugned order of suspension has been passed due to the fact that private respondent No.5 herein holding the post of Additional Director, Urban Estates, Haryana is inimical towards the petitioner. On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the amount of Rs.1.5 lacs claimed to have been paid by the petitioner to respondent No.5 was paid in cash. On another Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that no complaint has ever been given by the petitioner regarding the alleged monetary and other illegal demands made by the private respondent. As such, petitioner is not able to substantiate his allegations.

Furthermore, in paras 5 and 7 the written statement dated 21.07.2025 filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated as follows:

As such, contention of the petitioner that from Annexure R-1 it is evident that respondent No.5 had made an attempt to partly return Rs.1.5 lacs paid to him by the petitioner, also remains unsubstantiated.

Furthermore, specific allegations have been made against the petitioner which formed basis for passing the impugned order of suspension. It is admitted fact on record that the letter Memo No. 8405 dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-9) had been sent by the respondents to the Land Acquisition Officer, Gurugram calling upon him to clarify to the respondents regarding issuance of a letter dated 3137-38 dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure P-10) with regard to the status of land release. In the said letter dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-9), the respondents had asked LAO, Gururgram as to whether the aforesaid letter dated 19.06.2024 had been issued with the permission of the LAO Gurugram or not. It has further been stated that: “If it was not issued with your permission, please issue show cause notice to the employee who issued the letter and after that, send recommendations to this office for departmental action.” In pursuance of letter no. S-1-2024/8405 dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-9), Land Acquisition Officer, Gurugram informed the office of respondent vide letter no. 2025/425 dated 07.01.2025 that show cause notice was issued to Sh. Rajender Singh, Naib Tehsildar (Petitioner) regarding the submission of TDR report after signing by petitioner without taking consent and putting up before LAO, Gurugram. It was also submitted by LAO, Gurugram that petitioner submitted his reply on 12.11.2024 (Annexure P-15) which was not found satisfactory and also submitted that letter has been written to the Zonal Administrator-cum-Additional Director, Urban Estate Department for disciplinary action against the petitioner.” It is further submitted that upon the recommendation of the LAO, Gurugram petitioner was placed under suspension on 13.01.2025 with approval of Competent Authority.

From the above facts, it is clear that on the face of it, no illegality can be found in the impugned order of suspension which was carried out as per the provisions of Rules, 2016. It is also undisputed that Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner by the Land Acquisition Officer, Gurugram on 08.11.2024. It is only upon finding of reply of the petitioner to be unsatisfactory, recommendation had been sent to the respondent office for further action. Even reasonable opportunity has been granted to the petitioner to file reply. Furthermore, it is established position in law that suspension is not a punishment.

Keeping in view the above, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.