Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Widowed Teacher’s Suspension Over BLO Duty Despite Appointment of Substitutes; Holds Suspension Invalid After 90 Days Without Disciplinary Proceedings, Imposes ₹50,000 Costs on Officials
Case Name: Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 08 October 2026
Citation: CWP-23925-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that suspension of a government employee cannot be ordered mechanically or merely on the recommendation of another authority without independent application of mind. Where substitute Booth Level Officers (BLOs) had been appointed and the employee had already been replaced, their failure to assume charge or complete portal formalities could not be attributed to him. The Court further held that, under Rule 5(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016, suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings becomes invalid if such proceedings are not initiated within 90 days, unless a valid extension is granted in accordance with the Rules. An administrative order must also stand on the reasons originally recorded therein and cannot be justified through additional grounds introduced in subsequent affidavits.
Summary: The petitioner, a government school teacher who had performed BLO duties for approximately 11 years, sought exemption on compassionate grounds following his wife’s death, being responsible for his children and elderly mother. Although three substitute BLOs were successively appointed, none assumed charge or completed the requisite portal formalities. The authorities subsequently suspended the petitioner on 07.07.2026 for alleged negligence, insubordination and failure to perform election duties.
The High Court found that the authorities had issued contradictory directions, failed to establish a consistent date for the allegedly missed training, and suspended the petitioner despite his replacement as BLO on 16.06.2026. The suspension order reflected non-application of mind and reliance upon another authority’s recommendation without independent consideration. No charge-sheet had been served within the prescribed 90-day period, nor had any valid extension been granted. Applying State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, the Court held the impugned action unsustainable.
Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The suspension order dated 07.07.2026, the letter dated 03.07.2026 directing preparation of the draft charge-sheet, and all consequential proceedings were quashed. The Court directed that the suspension period be treated as duty and that full salary, allowances and withheld dues be released within four weeks, subject to adjustment of any subsistence allowance paid.
The Court also directed the authorities to consider the petitioner’s personal circumstances through a reasoned order before any future BLO assignment and prescribed safeguards regarding communication of replacement orders and joining of substitute BLOs. Costs of ₹50,000 were imposed upon the District Elementary Education Officer, Hisar, and the Electoral Registration Officer, Barwala, in equal shares, payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee.