Disposed¶28

Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Aug 2025CWP/10568/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of State employee; revocation of suspension order after 90-day lapse without initiation of disciplinary proceedings; absence of Rule 5(6) order under Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016 keeping employee suspended till culmination of proceedings; Rule 5(1) time-limit; State counsel's plea of lack of instructions deprecated; suspension deemed invalid and revoked; petitioner Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj; CWP-10568-2025 (O&M); decided 13.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Suspension order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P-12) deemed invalid and stood revoked; writ petition disposed of in those terms. ¶28

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Suspension order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P-12) deemed invalid and stood revoked; writ petition disposed of in those terms.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's suspension order dated 03.04.2025 can continue to be enforced where no disciplinary proceedings were initiated within 90 days and no order was passed by the competent authority under Rule 5(6) of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016 keeping the petitioner under suspension till culmination of the disciplinary proceedings or extending the initiation period.

¶16

Court's answer

Since no order was passed by the competent authority for keeping the petitioner under suspension till termination of the disciplinary proceedings, and no order approved extension of the period for initiating disciplinary proceedings, and undisputedly more than 90 days elapsed without departmental proceedings being initiated, the order of suspension cannot be enforced any further against the petitioner.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The suspension order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P-12) shall be deemed to have been rendered invalid and shall stand revoked.

¶27

Key takeaways

By pleading lack of instructions, the respondent State cannot be permitted to delay proceedings indefinitely merely because the administrative Department is not diligent or does not depute anybody to assist the State counsel; such routine practice deserves to be deprecated.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP-10568-2025 (O&M)) before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj, oral, decided 13.08.2025) challenging the petitioner's suspension by order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P-12). Counsel restricted the prayer to reinstatement on the ground that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated within 90 days and no order was passed by the competent authority under Rule 5(6) of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016 keeping the petitioner suspended till culmination of the disciplinary proceedings, so the case fell under Rule 5(1) and the suspension was to become invalid on expiry of time. State counsel conceded he had no instructions on whether any extension permission or Rule 5(6) order existed. Holding that, absent such orders and with more than 90 days elapsed without initiation of departmental proceedings, the suspension could not be enforced further, the Court deemed the suspension order invalid and revoked it, disposing of the petition accordingly. The Court also deprecated the State's routine practice of pleading lack of instructions to delay time-sensitive suspension matters.

¶1

CWP-10568-2025 -1-

¶2

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

223

¶4

CWP-10568-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.08.2025.

VIJAY KUMAR

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

¶9

… Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

¶11

PRESENT : Mr. Jaspal Singh Maanipur, Advocate, with

¶12

Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate, and Mr. Joypreet Meelu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

¶14

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J (ORAL)

¶15

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P-12) whereby the petitioner has been suspended.

¶16

2 Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, restricts his prayer and contends that on account of efflux of time, the petitioner is required to be reinstated since no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner despite expiry of 90 days within which

¶17

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.08.18 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-10568-2025

¶19

-2-

¶20

the disciplinary proceedings had to be initiated. He submits that there is no order passed by the competent authority to an effect that the petitioner has to be kept under suspension till culmination of the disciplinary proceedings as per Rule 5 (6) of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016. In the absence thereof, the case of the petitioner was required to be dealt with under Rule 5 (1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016 and on expiry of the time, the suspension was to become invalid.

¶21

3 Learned counsel for the respondent-State confines his argument only to the extent that a challenge cannot be raised to the order of suspension since it is not a punishment. However, despite a specific query put to the counsel as to whether any permission has been taken for extending the period of initiation of disciplinary proceedings and/or as to whether any order has been passed by the competent authority under Rule 5 (6) of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016, he submits that he has no instructions in this regard and seemingly no such order was passed.

¶22

4 By way of pleading lack of instructions, the respondent State cannot be permitted to delay the proceedings indefinitely only because the administrative Department is not careful and is not diligently pursuing the matters or does not depute anybody to assist the State counsel. In matters such as suspension, where the durations are limited and timelines are significant, delay in the proceedings in

¶23

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.08.18 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

CWP-10568-2025 -3-

¶25

such a manner is only a way by which a petition may be rendered infructuous and end up in futility and without any substantive relief to the petitioner. Same is being followed as a matter of practice by the respondent authorities in routine manner and deserves to be deprecated.

¶26

5 Since there is no order passed by the competent authority for keeping the petitioner under suspension till termination of the disciplinary proceedings and there also being no order by the competent authority approving extension of the period during which the disciplinary proceedings could be initiated and noticing that undisputedly a period of more than 90 days has elapsed and the departmental proceedings have not been initiated, I am of the opinion that under the aforesaid changed circumstances, the order of suspension cannot be enforced any further against the petitioner.

¶27

6 Consequently, the suspension order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P-12) shall be deemed to have been rendered invalid and shall stand revoked under these circumstances.

¶28

7 The present writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶29

August 13, 2025. (VINOD S. BHAR DWAJ) raj arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶30

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2025.08.18 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girish Kumar Mehtani Vs SBI and Others

Ajay Pal Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Muneesh Babbar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Dalel Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Rajat Vs Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors.

Rahul Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others