110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.02.2026 Rahul Yadav ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. J.S. Toor, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate and Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate and Ms. Manreet Kaur, Advocate for the respondent(s)-HSAMB.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned transfer order dated 21.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to frame a proper transfer policy and till then not to transfer the petitioner.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been made a shuttlecock. In his 16 years of service, he has been transferred 18 times with 10 of those transfers occurring in the last 10 years since his promotion. Vide impugned order dated 21.02.2026 (Annexure P-1), the respondent has transferred a much junior Assistant Secretary to the petitioner’s post without any administrative necessity or rationality. The order erroneously mentions the officer as Assistant Secretary, Adampur, instead of Assistant Secretary, Hisar. The impugned order violates the minimum tenure prescribed in the transfer policy dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) applicable to the respondent-Board. A similar transfer order dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure P- 2) was withdrawn by the respondent on 18.12.2024 (Annexure P-3) after the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing CWP No.34788 of 2024. In a similar matter, this Court has ordered the stay on the transfer order in CWP No.17942 of 2024. The facts of this case are similar in nature, as such, the impugned transfer order is arbitrary, mala fide and passed at the whim of political bosses without any administrative necessity.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-HSAMB appears on receipt of advance notice and submits that the petitioner has not been transferred and he has only been deployed in the Head Office at Panchkula in view of the serious complaint received against him. As such, the argument raised by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been transferred without any administrative necessity or rationality is contrary to the record. He further submits that the respondent-Board is proposing to take the complaint to the logical end by initiating disciplinary proceedings.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and without commenting further on the veracity of the complaint, lest it may prejudice either of the parties, this Court finds no ground to interfere at this stage, particularly when the impugned order clearly indicates that the petitioner was only deployed in head office at Panchkula. However, the respondent-Board is directed to conclude the inquiry in a time-bound manner, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and thereafter proceed further strictly in accordance with law.

5. In case, the complicity of the petitioner is not established during the preliminary enquiry, then his case would be examined fresh in terms of the applicable transfer policy.

6. Disposed of accordingly.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

27.02.2026 Neha