IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

259-1 CWP-16412-2017 (O&M)

Date of decision: 16.05.2025 Balbir Singh Saini ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent

259-2 CWP-25701-2012 (O&M)

Date of decision: 16.05.2025 Balbir Singh Saini ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Hritik Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Rahul Dev, Addl. AG Haryana.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. Both these writ petitions, arising from the same cause of action, are being decided by a common judgment. While CWP-25701-2012 had been filed, raising a challenge to the charge-sheet that had been served upon the petitioner, CWP-16412-2017 had been filed against the imposition of punishment consequent upon disciplinary proceedings alongwith challenge to the orders of promotion of juniors ignoring the claim of the petitioner for being promoted.

2. The petitioner was posted as a Superintending Engineer in the Irrigation Department when a chargesheet dated 11.09.2010 was served upon him, pertaining to some works that had been executed in the year 2007 while being posted as Executive Engineer, Siwani Water Services Division, Bhiwani for the work of earth work and lining of Gosaiwala Minor from RD 6500-9300 alongwith ancillary works. The charges levelled in the aforesaid charge-sheet are extracted as under:-

“1. That he called the tenders for the work of earth work and lining of Gosaiwala Minor from RD 6500-9300 with other works and the tenders were opened on 2.3.2007. Nineteen tenders were sold for the said work but only three tenders were received. He failed to take appropriate action regarding pooling in tenders and also failed to cancel the same inspite of the fact that he admitted the same in his statement.

2. That he failed to call the societies/contractors for negotiation. Even the second lowest agency was also not called for negotiation of rates which was required under the rules.

3. That he recommended the rates at his own without any logic i.e. @ 8% above Departmental Through Rate, whereas after negotiation the lowest tendering agency quoted the rates of 20% above Departmental Through Rate. After refusal of the lowest agencies for doing the work at the rates of 8.02% above Departmental Through Rate, he allotted the above said work to the non tendering agency at the rates of 20%

above Departmental Through Rate, without giving proper opportunity/ intimation to other eligible tendering agencies. He failed to cancel the tenders and further failed to call the fresh tenders as per Government instructions as contained in rule 13.18.1(f) of Haryana Public Works Department Code. In this way he also violated rule 3(i) (ii) and (iii) of the Government Employees (Conduct) Rules 1966.”

3. The petitioner filed his reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet, however, notwithstanding the response given by the petitioner, an inquiry report was submitted against him, purportedly proving the charges and culminating into imposing of penalty of 5% cut on the pension for a period of one year vide order dated 22.05.2017. The same reads thus:

“Sh. Balbir Singh Saini submitted his defence reply to the said chargesheet on 11.2.2011 and denied all the charges. After taking the comments of the department, the competent authority did not find his reply convincing and Sh. R.P. Bhasin, Distt & Session Judge (Retd.) was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct regular department enquiry against him. The Inquiry Officer has proved charges No. 1 & 3 against Sh. Balbir Singh, Superintending Engineer in his report.

In terms of sub rule (6) of Rule-7 of the Haryana Civil Services (P&A) Rules, 1987 amended vide Govt. notification dated 6th July, 2007, a copy of inquiry report was sent to him for making a representation, if any vide No. 6/51/2010-5IE, dated 17.10.2012. The delinquent Officer vide his application dated 19.11.2012 requested to extend time upto 15