Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalbir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 February, 2026
113+119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1) CWP-3010-2026
Date of decision: 03.02.2026
Rajbir Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
2) CWP-3071-2026
Dalbir Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Garvit Mittal, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-3010-2026).
Mr. Himanshu Munjal, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-3071-2026).
Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl.A.G., Haryana
for respondent No.1-State (in CWP-3010-2026).
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 6 (in CWP-3010-2026)
for respondents No.1 to 10 (in CWP-3071-2026).
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This common order shall dispose of the aforementioned civil writ petitions as the issue involved in the present case is identical in nature. However, the facts are taken from CWP-3010-2026.
2. The present civil writ petition(s) has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 21:10:08 ::: CWP-3010-2026 CWP-3071-2026 -2- certiorari for quashing the impugned suspension order dated 29.05.2023 (Annexure P-1A) as well as impugned speaking order dated 03.10.2025 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.4. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service w.e.f. 03.02.2025 i.e. the date on which similarly situated employees have been reinstated in service by the respondents vide orders dated 03.02.2025 (Annexures P-5 & P-6) along with all consequential benefits.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in CWP-3010-2026 submits that the petitioner has joined UHBVN as ALM in the year 1997 and was promoted as Lineman. The petitioner was falsely implicated in FIR No.401 dated 19.05.2023 (Annexure P-1). He placed under suspension w.e.f. 29.05.2023 as discernible from Annexure P-1A. He further submits that the identically circumstanced co-accused, namely, Kanwar Bahadur Singh and Ashok Kumar, suspended on 30.05.2024 were reinstated on 03.02.2025 (Annexures P-5 & P-6). The petitioner submitted representations seeking reinstatement and enhancement of subsistence allowance which remained unheeded. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred CWP No.17958 of 2025 which was disposed of on 04.07.2025 (Annexure P-10) directing the respondents to consider his representation.
4. In purported compliance, respondent No.4 passed the impugned speaking order dated 03.10.2025 (Annexure P-11) rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. He further submits that the departmental inquiry is pending since 19.09.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP-3071-2026 submits that 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 21:10:09 ::: CWP-3010-2026 CWP-3071-2026 -3- the petitioner was placed under suspension on 23.03.2024 and till date, even the enquiry officer has not been appointed. He further submits that this Court in CWP No.4863 of 2004 titled as 'Rohtas Singh Vs. State of Haryana' and CWP No.768 of 2023 titled as 'Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana' has consistently held that subsistence allowance must be enhanced every six months unless the delay is attributable to the employee and the compensatory allowance like HRA cannot be arbitrarily withheld during the suspension period.
6. Learned senior counsel for petitioner in CWP-3010-2026 relies upon the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.11580 of 2017 titled as 'Ashok Kumar Vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and another' decided on 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-14) and CWP No.1117 of 2026 titled as 'Pooja Gera Vs. State of Haryana and others' decided on 19.01.2026 (Annexure P-15) and submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judicial precedents and it is a settled law that the departmental proceedings are required to be concluded within the reasonable dispatch as the delinquent employee has a legitimate right to a speedy conclusion of disciplinary proceedings when the delay is abnormal and remains unexplained, it would vitiate the entire disciplinary proceedings. He further submits that the petitioner cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel is not in a position to dispute the applicability of Rules 83 and 84 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016 to the case of the petitioner(s) and could not distinguish the facts of the present case from those involved in the judgment rendered by this Court in Ashok Kumar's case (supra).
3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 21:10:09 ::: CWP-3010-2026 CWP-3071-2026 -4-
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance. Admittedly, the petitioner in CWP-3010- 2026 was suspended on 29.05.2023 and petitioner in CWP-3071-2026 was suspended on 23.03.2024. Further, it is a trite law that disciplinary proceedings are required to be concluded within a reasonable dispatch as has been laid down by this Court in CWP No.9606 of 2022 titled as 'Khairati Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others' decided on 13.10.2025. Moreover, Rules 83 and 84 of the Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016 (in short 'the Rules, 2016') obligates the respondent-Corporation to review the subsistence allowance in case the suspension period exceeds 06 months. The drill of these rules has not been followed while passing the impugned order (Annexure P-11).
9. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme court in State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal 1995(2) SCC 570 Speaking through Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy observed that, "10. Now remains the question of delay. There is undoubtedly a delay of five and a half years in serving the charges. The question is whether the said delay warranted the quashing of charges in this case. It is trite to say that such disciplinary proceeding must be conducted soon after the irregularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities. They cannot be initiated after lapse of considerable time. It would not be fair to the delinquent officer. Such delay also makes the task of proving the charges difficult and is thus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the court may well interfere and quash the charges. But how long a delay is too long always depends upon the facts of the given case. Moreover, 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 21:10:09 ::: CWP-3010-2026 CWP-3071-2026 -5- if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. In other words, the court has to indulge in a process of balancing. Now, let us see what are the factors in favour of the respondent......."
(emphasis added)
10. As far as the continuous suspension of the petitioner is concerned, the same is beyond the permissible limit set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.958 of 2010, titled as Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another, decided on 16.12.2015, whereby it has been observed as follows:-
"31) Time and again, this Court has emphasized that it is the duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry initiated against the delinquent employee is concluded within the shortest possible time by taking priority measures. In cases where the delinquent is placed under suspension during the pendency of such inquiry then it becomes all the more imperative for the employer to ensure that the inquiry is concluded in the shortest possible time to avoid any inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of the delinquent employee.
32) As a matter of experience, we often notice that after completion of the inquiry, the issue involved therein does not come to an end because if the findings of the inquiry proceedings have gone against the delinquent employee, he invariably pursues the issue in Court to ventilate his grievance, which again consumes time for its final conclusion.
33) Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the considered opinion that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is 5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 21:10:09 ::: CWP-3010-2026 CWP-3071-2026 -6- not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year."
(emphasis added)
11. Every delinquent employee has a legitimate right to have disciplinary proceedings concluded expeditiously. Undue prolongation causes mental agony, financial hardship, and social stigma, even before the charges are proven. This is considered as a punishment in itself. When delay is abnormal and remains unexplained by the department, prejudice to the delinquent is presumed. The employee may suffer from loss of evidence, non-availability of witnesses, fading memory, and inability to defend effectively. While serious charges may warrant continuation, prolonged delay without justification tilts the balance in favour of quashing the proceedings.
12. The employer must conduct proceedings diligently and without unnecessary delay. Protracted enquiries defeat the very purpose of disciplinary mechanism, instead of ensuring efficiency, integrity, and accountability they breed inefficiency, demoralization, and distrust in the system. A lack of seriousness in pursuing charges reflects poorly on the administration and may indicate malice or oblique motives, the employer cannot be permitted to keep the sword of disciplinary action dangling over an employee indefinitely.
13. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs Parmod Kumar IPS, (2018) 17 SCC 677 and K. Sukhender Reddy vs State of A.P. and another, (1999) 6 SCC 257, has clarified that a delinquent employee cannot be placed under suspension for an indefinite period. Further, it was held 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 21:10:09 ::: CWP-3010-2026 CWP-3071-2026 -7- that suspension must necessarily be of a short duration as the delinquent employee is entitled to speedy conclusion of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in Ashok Kumar's case (supra).
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the settled law, both the present petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 03.10.2025 (Annexure P-11) (in CWP-3010-2026) is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner(s) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order strictly in terms of the law laid down by this Court in Khairati Lal's case (supra).
15. The respondents are further directed to reconsider and decide the claim of the petitioner(s) afresh with regard to enhancement of subsistence allowance in accordance with Rules 83 & 84 of the Rules, 2016 within a period of four weeks from today.
16. Further, the petitioner in CWP-3071-2026 is entitled to HRA in view of the judgments rendered by this Court in Rohtas Singh's case (supra) and Ram Phal's case (supra), and the same shall be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Further, the petitioner(s) is entitled to all the allowances in terms of Rule 85 of the Rules, 2016, including HRA, which shall be released within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 21:10:09 ::: CWP-3010-2026 CWP-3071-2026 -8-
17. The petitioner(s) claim for reinstatement be considered strictly in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in Pooja Gera' case (supra) and appropriate order be passed within a period of four weeks.
18. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
03.02.2026
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 21:10:09 :::