← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/12597/2026disposed of

Sukhdev Vashisht v. State Of Punjab And Others

2026-04-24Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-12597-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.04.2026 Sukhdev Vashisht ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:

Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the suspension order dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) and allow the petitioner to join his duties with all consequential benefits. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondent/Municipal Corporation to enhance the subsistence allowance as per Rule 7.2 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I, on completion of period of six months and nine months of suspension with all consequential benefits including arrears along with interest @ 18% p.a.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case i.e. FIR No.23 dated

14.05.2025, registered at Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar Range and pursuant to the same, the petitioner was suspended on 16.06.2025 w.e.f. 14.05.2025. The petitioner submitted representation seeking reinstatement pending enquiry on 11.09.2025, which remained unheeded whereas the identically circumstanced co-accused Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Building Inspector, was reinstated pending enquiry vide order dated 23.12.2025. The petitioner completed six months of suspension and became eligible for enhanced subsistence allowance (75%) under Rule 7.2 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I. 2.1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that he would be satisfied if the instant writ petition of the petitioner is treated as a comprehensive representation and the same be decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. 3.

Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, submits that he has no objection, in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2 for time-bound consideration and decision thereof by passing a speaking order.

4.

Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.2 is directed to treat this writ petition as a comprehensive representation and consider the case of the petitioner and pass a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the

petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted forthwith by respondent No.2.

5.

Disposed of, accordingly.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 24.04.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No