JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

Prayer

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ in the nature of Certiorari seeking quashing of the order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Force, Haryana, Panchkula vide which petitioner has been placed under suspension with further prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

Brief Facts

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Deputy Forest Ranger on 07.09.2004 and, upon promotion, has been serving as a Forest Ranger/Range Forest Officer since the year 2011. A report dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) was submitted by the Conservator of Forests, Ambala, alleging certain acts of negligence and disobedience of official directions on the part of the petitioner.

3. On the basis of the said report, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 5 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016, passed an order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-2) placing the petitioner under suspension. The suspension was ordered pending further consideration of the matter at the departmental level. Aggrieved by the aforesaid suspension order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Contentions

On behalf of petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned suspension order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-2) has been passed in an arbitrary and mechanical manner without due application of mind. It is submitted that the order is founded solely on a communication dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Conservator of Forests, Ambala, without any preliminary inquiry and without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

5. It is argued that the suspension order is non-speaking in nature, as it neither discloses any material nor records reasons justifying the necessity of placing the petitioner under suspension. The allegations of “continuous negligence” and “disobedience of orders” are stated to be vague and undefined, with no specific charge or factual foundation mentioned therein.

6. Learned counsel submits that even if the alleged lapses are assumed to be correct, the same do not constitute misconduct of such gravity as to warrant suspension, rendering the impugned action punitive in nature and violative of the principles of natural justice.

7. It is also alleged that the suspension order is vitiated by mala fides, having been issued with an ulterior motive to accommodate a relative of respondent No. 3 on the post held by the petitioner.

8. No other arguments has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Analysis

9. This Court has considered the submissions and has perused the record with due care. The impugned order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-2) has been passed in exercise of powers under Rule 5 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016, which empowers the competent authority to place a government servant under suspension pending contemplation or pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Suspension, by its very nature, is not a punishment but a measure to facilitate a fair and unhindered inquiry, and therefore does not attract the rigors applicable to punitive orders.

10. The record reveals that the suspension order has been passed after receipt and consideration of the report dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) submitted by the Conservator of Forests, Ambala. The competent authority, namely the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, was satisfied that continuation of the petitioner in service at the relevant post was not desirable at that stage. At the stage of suspension, the authority is not required to record elaborate reasons or to adjudicate upon the correctness of the allegations, nor is it necessary to specify detailed charges in the suspension order