JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

Prayer

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 06.08.2020 (Annexure P- 3)whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension and chargesheeted him under Rule 7 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 2016 (in short as HCS Rules).

Factual Background

2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant District Attorney on the recommendation of the Haryana Public Service Commission and duly joined service. During his posting at Ambala, the petitioner repeatedly made written representations to the Deputy Commissioner, Director of Prosecution, and higher authorities highlighting the complete lack of basic infrastructure and supporting staff in his office, which, according to him, made discharge of official duties impossible.

3. An explanation was sought from the petitioner by the Director of Prosecution, which was duly replied to and clarified. Despite this, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 06.08.2020 (Annexure P-3).

4. The petitioner challenged the suspension order by filing the instant petition, wherein this Court, vide order dated 26.08.2020, kept the suspension order in abeyance, which was clarified on 05.11.2020 by observing that there was no impediment to issuance of a charge sheet, subject to final decision of the case.

5. A charge sheet dated 27.01.2021 was served upon the petitioner only on 15.02.2021, i.e., after about 193 days from the date of suspension. The respondents have admitted this fact in their communication dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P-23).

6. Meanwhile, the petitioner also sought transfer under the Haryana Government Couple Policy and on medical grounds relating to his wife’s pregnancy. Subsequently, vide order dated 25.04.2025, this Court vacated the interim order on the ground that counsel for the petitioner was avoiding arguments. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Prosecution issued a letter dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure P-24) directing implementation of the suspension order.

Contentions

On behalf of the petitioner

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned suspension order dated 06.08.2020 (Annexure P-3) is illegal, arbitrary and void ab initio, as the charge sheet was not issued within the mandatory period prescribed under Rule 5 of the HCS Rules, 2016. It is contended that the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner only on 15.02.2021, i.e. after more than 180 days from the date of suspension, a fact expressly admitted by the respondents themselves. In the absence of initiation of disciplinary proceedings within the statutory period, the suspension stood automatically revoked by operation of law.

8. It is further argued that no order extending the suspension beyond the initial period of ninety days, nor any approval of the competent authority as required under Rule 5 of HCS Rules, 2016, was ever communicated to the petitioner. Consequently, the suspension could not legally survive beyond the prescribed period and the respondents were divested of any authority to revive or act upon the same at a later stage, while further arguing that the subsequent communication dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure P-24) issued by the Director of Prosecution, pursuant to the vacation of interim relief by this Court, is legally unsustainable, as an invalid and non-existent suspension order could not have been acted upon or enforced after the statutory lapse.

9. It is further contended that the decision to initiate proceedings under Rule 7 of the HCS Rules, 2016 is vitiated by non-application of mind and arbitrariness, as the impugned suspension order and consequential proceedings were initiated without issuance of any show cause notice and without instituting a preliminary inquiry, thereby rendering the entire action procedurally defective and unsustainable in law.

10. It is lastly contended that the petitioner has since been tr