IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 21.05.2026 Roshni Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .…Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate (through Hybrid Mode) and Mr. Mohan Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

The instant petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P.1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, vide which, while holding the petitioner as professionally negligent, the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar, was directed to deduct Rs.5,000/- from the salary of the petitioner and get the same deposited in the District Legal Services Authority, Hisar.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is posted as an Assistant District Attorney in the Office of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar. In Civil Suit No. 1313-2021 titled as “Lal Chand Devi Chand Charitable Trust Vs. State of Haryana”, the petitioner was assisting the Government Pleader, appearing for defendant Nos. 1 to 3. In the said case, vide order dated

24.03.2026, the trial Court, while granting last opportunity for the defendants’ evidence, imposed costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the defendants in DLSA, Hisar. The Court had further directed General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar, to fix the responsibility of the concerned Official for the delay and to deduct the said amount of Rs.5,000/- from his salary.

2.1 It is further averred that the order dated 24.03.2026 was communicated by the ADA Branch to the Office of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar on 07.04.2026 with the request to take necessary action. Subsequently, a reminder dated 17.04.2026 was also sent. Accordingly, DW-Anil Kumar appeared in the Court and was partly examined. It is further asserted that on 29.04.2026, the Office of General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar, received a copy of order dated 20.04.2026 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, sent by the Reader of the said Court, wherein the petitioner was held professionally negligent for the delay in trial of the Civil Suit and accordingly, the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, was directed to deduct the said amount of Rs.5,000/- from her salary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been appearing as an Assistant District Attorney in the said Civil Suit and the ADA Branch, where the petitioner has been posted, sent due communications to the defendants as regards the orders passed by the Court and for producing their evidence. It is further submitted that pursuant to the said communications, DW-Anil Kumar, appeared before the Court and he was partly examined.

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that there is no professional negligence on the part of the petitioner. It is argued that being Assistant District Attorney, the duty of the petitioner is to firstly requisition the relevant documents from the Department and then prepare and file the reply in the Court and also produce the evidence.

3.2 Learned counsel further argues that a perusal of the communications (Annexures P.5 to P.14), would show that the ADA Branch, had called upon the defendant-Haryana Roadways, Hisar, to produce its evidence before the Court, but despite that the needful was not done. It is further argued that the trial Court, wrongly observed that the delay in the trial of the suit was due to the professional negligence on the part of the petitioner, as she was representing the Department in the said Civil Suit. Still further, it is argued that vide order dated 24.03.2026 the trial Court had directed the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hisar, to fix the responsibility of the concerned official for the delay and, therefore, the trial Court was not justified in fixing the said responsibility itself and that too, without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or