AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of certiorari for quashing the transfer order dated 24.07.2026 (Annexure P-16) vide which petitioner has been transferred from DIET, Biswamil, Sonipat to GSSS, Mallekan, Ellenabad, Sirsa and subsequent relieving order dated 27.07.2026 (Annexure P-19) ordered to report and join at his new posting. Further during pendency of the present writ petition, impugned transfer order and relieving order be stayed.
On 03.08.2026, the following order was passed by this Court:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was serving as a Senior Lecturer in District Sonipat. On 07.04.2026, the petitioner submitted a complaint to the competent authority (Annexure P-6) reporting acts of indiscipline and insubordination on the part of certain officials. As a counterblast, on the very same day, a complaint was made against the petitioner, which was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat, for inquiry (Annexure P-7).
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had highlighted instances of proxy attendance, tampering of official records and other irregularities in the larger public interest. However, instead of taking action against the officials allegedly involved in such irregularities, an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner was also discharging duties as the Nodal Officer for the SIR election exercise, which is scheduled to continue till 03.10.2026 as discernible from (Annexure P-18). As such, his sudden transfer during Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Roll would also hamper the work assigned by Election Commission of India.
It is further submitted that the inquiry into the veracity of the allegations levelled by the petitioner and the role of the officials alleged to have committed the irregularities is still pending. However, on the basis of the recommendation made by the local MLA, the petitioner has been made a scapegoat and transferred to the other end of the State, i.e. Sirsa. As such, it is contended that the transfer of the petitioner is not founded on any administrative grounds; rather, it has been effected at the ipse dixit of the local MLA, and the petitioner has been singled out for victimisation.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, puts in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He seeks a short accommodation to obtain complete instructions in the matter.
Adjourned to 13.08.2026.
Reply, if any, be filed in the Registry at least one week before the next date of hearing, with an advance copy supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In the meantime, operation of Annexures P-16 and P-19 shall remain stayed.”
Today, learned State counsel refers to the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and submits that, apart from the allegations referred to by the petitioner, a joint complaint was also received against the petitioner from 17 lecturers and 3 officials of DIET, Biswamil, Sonipat, inter alia, alleging harassment, threatening behaviour, telephone calls to family members of staff and concerns regarding the safety of female employees at the workplace. It is submitted that the said material fact and the consequential inquiry were not disclosed by the petitioner while approaching this Court. Learned State counsel submits that, upon receipt of the said complaint, the competent authority appointed Dr. Chinar Sansaniwal, HCS, Deputy Secretary to Government, Haryana, School Education, as the Inquiry Officer, who conducted the inquiry and considered the statements of the teaching and non-teaching staff as well as the version submitted by the petitioner.
It is further submitted that the Inquiry Officer, after considering the material available on record, submitted the inquiry report dated 16.06.2026, wherein, keeping in view the prevailing circumstances at the institute and the necessity of ensuring a safe and conducive workplace, particularly for female employees, recommendation was made for transfer of the petitioner from his present place of posting with immediate effect in administrative interest.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in response, submits that the inquiry was conducted with a predetermined mind and in a biased manner with a view to malign and victimise the petitioner and to create stigma against him, without there being any lawful proof of the allegations. It is further submitted that the petitioner has reserved his legal right to initiate appropriate proceedings against the persons responsible for defamation, mental harassment and abuse of the process of law.
Learned State counsel, however, refers to Annexure P-9, wherein the petitioner had controverted the allegations levelled against him and had also raised allegations regarding the conduct and behaviour of certain other employees. It is submitted that the petitioner's version was duly placed before the Inquiry Officer and was considered along with the complaint and the statements of the staff members. The inquiry report itself records that the petitioner had submitted his detailed version and that the respective versions and material on record were considered by the Inquiry Officer.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the petitioner, in the present writ petition, has impugned the transfer order dated 24.07.2026 (Annexure P-16) as well as the consequential relieving order dated 27.07.2026 (Annexure P-19). The record reveals that the respondent-Department appointed Dr. Chinar Sansaniwal, HCS, Deputy Secretary to Government, Haryana, School Education, as the Inquiry Officer, who conducted the inquiry and considered the statements of the teaching and non-teaching staff as well as the petitioner's defence. The proceedings were conducted on 10.06.2026, wherein the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and was afforded an opportunity to submit his version.
The Inquiry Officer, after considering the material available on record, observed that a large number of employees, including female staff members, had levelled allegations regarding harassment, intimidation and inappropriate conduct against the petitioner and that the prevailing circumstances had adversely affected the working environment, staff morale and institutional discipline. The Inquiry Officer consequently recommended that the petitioner be transferred from his present place of posting with immediate effect in administrative interest, particularly keeping in view the necessity of ensuring a safe and conducive workplace for female employees.
Without expressing any opinion on the veracity of the allegations or counter-allegations levelled by the respective parties, the fact remains that the impugned transfer was preceded by an inquiry conducted by an officer appointed by the competent authority, wherein the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to place his version on record. The Inquiry Officer thereafter recommended transfer of the petitioner in administrative interest. The respondents have also specifically taken the stand that the impugned transfer order is administrative and non-punitive in nature. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned transfer order dated 24.07.2026 (Annexure P-16) and the consequential relieving order dated 27.07.2026 (Annexure P-19).
Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 03.08.2026, whereby operation of Annexures P-16 and P-19 was stayed, stands vacated.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.