113+119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.02.2026 Rajbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents

2) CWP-3071-2026 Dalbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Garvit Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-3010-2026).

Mr. Himanshu Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-3071-2026).

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondent No.1-State (in CWP-3010-2026).

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 6 (in CWP-3010-2026)

for respondents No.1 to 10 (in CWP-3071-2026).

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This common order shall dispose of the aforementioned civil writ petitions as the issue involved in the present case is identical in nature.

However, the facts are taken from CWP-3010-2026.

2. The present civil writ petition(s) has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned suspension order dated 29.05.2023 (Annexure P-1A) as well as impugned speaking order dated 03.10.2025 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.4. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service w.e.f. 03.02.2025 i.e. the date on which similarly situated employees have been reinstated in service by the respondents vide orders dated 03.02.2025 (Annexures P-5 & P-6) along with all consequential benefits.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in CWP-3010-2026 submits that the petitioner has joined UHBVN as ALM in the year 1997 and was promoted as Lineman. The petitioner was falsely implicated in FIR No.401 dated 19.05.2023 (Annexure P-1). He placed under suspension w.e.f. 29.05.2023 as discernible from Annexure P-1A. He further submits that the identically circumstanced co-accused, namely, Kanwar Bahadur Singh and Ashok Kumar, suspended on 30.05.2024 were reinstated on 03.02.2025 (Annexures P-5 & P-6). The petitioner submitted representations seeking reinstatement and enhancement of subsistence allowance which remained unheeded. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred CWP No.17958 of 2025 which was disposed of on 04.07.2025 (Annexure P-10) directing the respondents to consider his representation.

4. In purported compliance, respondent No.4 passed the impugned speaking order dated 03.10.2025 (Annexure P-11) rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. He further submits that the departmental inquiry is pending since

19.09.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP-3071-2026 submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 23.03.2024 and till date, even the enquiry officer has not been appointed. He further submits that this Court in CWP No.4863 of 2004 titled as ‘Rohtas Singh Vs. State of Haryana’ and CWP No.768 of 2023 titled as ‘Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana’ has consistently held that subsistence allowance must be enhanced every six months unless the delay is attributable to the employee and the compensatory allowance like HRA cannot be arbitrarily withheld during the suspension period.

6. Learned senior counsel for petitioner in CWP-3010-2026 relies upon the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.11580 of 2017 titled as ‘Ashok Kumar Vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and another’ decided on 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-14) and CWP No.1117 of 2026 titled as ‘Pooja Gera Vs. State of Haryana and others’ decided on 19.01.2026 (Annexure P-15) and submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judicial precedents and it is a settled law that the departmental proceedings are required to be concluded within the reasonable dispatch as the delinquent employee has a legitimate right to a speedy conclusion of disciplinary proceedings when the delay is abnormal and remains unexplained, it would vitiate the entire disciplinary pro