IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:04.12.2025 Sunil Kumar ….Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, D.A.G, Haryana ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of:

(i) Order dated 28.09.2025 (Annexure P-11) whereby he was placed under suspension and regular departmental inquiry was entrusted to Additional Superintendent of Police, Jind;

(ii) Chargesheet dated 18.10.2025 (Annexure P-14) issued by Additional Superintendent of Police, Jind; and (iii) Show cause notice dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-18) whereby respondent has proposed punishment of dismissal from service In the alternative, he prays that departmental inquiry may be entrusted to some other independent and impartial Officer of some other Range in the State of Haryana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ADGP Hisar Range, Hisar who has issued the impugned show cause notice is inimical to the petitioner. On the earlier occasion, petitioner was placed under suspension by the same Officer. The Officer is hell bent to dismiss him from service. The past history reveals that order of ADGP, Hisar Range, Hisar would be prejudicial to and biased against the petitioner.

3. Learned State counsel submits that inquiry was conducted by an Officer other than Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner would get right to file appeal before Director General of Police against the order of ADGP.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. The petitioner is assailing inquiry report, charge sheet and show cause notice issued by Disciplinary Authority. The inquiry was conducted by Additional Superintendent of Police, Jind who is an IPS Officer. The Disciplinary Authority has issued show cause notice, however, till date final order has not been passed. The petitioner is claiming that he has not been supplied copy of inquiry report.

6. This Court is sanguine that Disciplinary Authority would not pass any order without supplying copy of inquiry report to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority would also consider facts and figures on record besides submissions of the petitioner. It would pass order in accordance with law. The petitioner would get opportunity to file appeal before Director General of Police as per Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana), thus, interference at this stage is not warranted.

7. Disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE

04.12.2025 paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No