Court Rules Suspension Was Arbitrary, Without Proper Inquiry, and Orders Full Pay with Costs on Officials for Mismanagement
In a significant judgment delivered on October 8, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the suspension order of Sunil Kumar, a government school teacher, who was suspended by the District Elementary Education Officer, Hisar, for alleged non-performance of duties as a Booth Level Officer (BLO). The Court also quashed the proposed disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and imposed costs on the concerned officials for their conduct.
Sunil Kumar had been performing BLO duties for over 11 years until the death of his wife in September 2025 left him as the sole caregiver for his elderly mother and children. On compassionate grounds, he sought relief from BLO duties by applying to the District Election Officer. The application was recommended by his immediate superiors, and three substitute BLOs were appointed in his place. However, none of these substitutes reportedly joined or updated their details on the official electoral portal, leaving the petitioner's mapping as BLO intact.
Despite these facts, the electoral authorities alleged that Sunil Kumar failed to perform his BLO duties and suspended him on July 7, 2026, based on recommendations from the Election Officer without issuing any formal relieving order or considering the petitioner's representations. The petitioner had also not received any charge-sheet or show-cause notice before suspension.
The Court observed that the suspension was passed mechanically, without application of mind, and without inquiry into the factual contradictions. The authorities had taken contradictory stands, including shifting dates of alleged missed training and ignoring the failure of substitute BLOs to perform their duties. The Court further held that suspension, which has serious civil consequences though not a punishment, cannot be used arbitrarily or as a punitive measure without a strong prima facie case and proper procedure.
Critically, the Court noted that under Rule 5 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016, suspension is invalid if disciplinary proceedings are not initiated within 90 days of suspension, a condition which was not complied with in this case. The petitioner's suspension thus ceased to be valid by operation of law.
Highlighting the lack of coordination within the election machinery, the Court directed that clear written relieving orders must be issued when a BLO is replaced, and the joining and portal mapping of substitute BLOs must be ensured promptly. It also directed that the petitioner's suspension period be treated as duty period with full pay and allowances, and ordered the release of withheld salary after adjusting subsistence allowance.
Moreover, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the District Elementary Education Officer and the Electoral Registration Officer for unnecessarily consuming court time and mismanagement. The judgment strongly deprecated the conduct of the officials, emphasizing the hardship caused to a bereaved government servant who had sought compassionate relief through proper channels.
This judgment reinforces the principle that suspension orders must be based on proper application of mind, reasonable grounds, and compliance with procedural safeguards. It cautions authorities against arbitrary and mala fide exercise of suspension powers and underscores the need for transparency and coordination in public administration.
Bottom Line:
Service law - Suspension of teacher for alleged non-performance of BLO duty quashed - Suspension cannot be mechanical or on dictates of another authority - Where employee sought release on compassionate grounds, substitutes were appointed, and no charge-sheet was served within 90 days, suspension became invalid under Rule 5 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016 - Fresh reasons cannot be added through affidavit to sustain impugned order.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016 Rule 5
Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2999350
