JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 30/31.12.2025 (Annexure P-12) whereby the petitioner was ordered to be reverted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil). Further prayer has been made for quashing the impugned conditions of probation in the letter of promotion dated 17/18.07.2024 (Annexure P-7).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner had joined the Indian Army as Lieutenant in March, 2001. She was promoted to Captain in December, 2001 and thereafter, to Major in the year 2005. The petitioner served the Indian Army till March, 2006 after which she applied for the post of Sub Divisional Engineer (Civil) with the Haryana Urban Development Authority in pursuance of advertisement No.2005/2 issued in November, 2005. She participated in the selection process and was ultimately appointed to the said post vide appointment letter dated 30.11.2006 (Annexure P-1).

3. The petitioner received a promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) on regular basis, as indicated by order of promotion dated 05/07.08.2015 (Annexure P-2). However, while working as Executive Engineer(Civil), on 15.12.2020, an FIR bearing No.710 dated 15.12.2020 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7,10, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Gurgaon Sadar was lodged against her and some other employees on the basis of a complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding non-completion of project and enhancement of agreement of constructions.

4. Further, for some other commission and omission, the petitioner was charge-sheeted. An Inquiry Officer was appointed whose report was presented before a personnel meeting of HSVP held on 03.07.2024, which consisted of Chief Administrator, Administrator and the representative of the Finance Department. It was concluded therein that disciplinary action cannot be taken merely on the basis of suspicion alone. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was ordered to be dropped. In the same meeting, the name of the petitioner was recommended for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineering (Civil) w.e.f. the date her junior had been promoted notionally and w.e.f. the date she assumes charge of the promotion actually.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner and certain other officials were inducted in another FIR bearing No.32 dated 05.09.2025 under Sections 420, 409, 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station ACB Gurugram. It was alleged therein that technically and financially ineligible contractors were hired for road work worth Rs.52.15 crores, whose agreement was enhanced from Rs.9.54 crores without fixing time limit or obtaining performance security of Rs.2.60 crores. In furtherance of the same, internal inquiries were conducted by the Chief Vigilance Officer, HSVP, Department of Vigilance who recommended departmental action against the officials involved. The copy of any such reports was not provided to the petitioner and yet impugned order dated 30/31.12.2025 was passed against her, reverting her to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil).

CONTENTIONS

6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned reversion order (Annexure P-12) mentions that while the charge-sheet was dropped against the petitioner, the issue regarding the work concerned has been raised in the audit report. It was also mentioned that at the time of her promotion, inquiries by Anti- Corruption Bureau and the Chief Vigilance Officer were pending against her. However, they failed to mention that both these aspects were taken into account while promoting the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer. In the same vein, FIR No.32 (supra) cannot have any bearing on the fate of the promot