The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the suspension order and related criminal proceedings issued against Rahul Yadav, a Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN) in Guhla, Kaithal. The action was taken after Haryana Energy Minister Anil Vij, while heading a District Grievance Committee (DGC) meeting, had directed that the officer be suspended and an FIR be filed against him over alleged bribery. The court observed that the minister had no authority to issue such orders and that the committee’s directions appeared to be influenced and arbitrary.
The single-judge bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while issuing the interim stay, said that the suspension seemed to have been driven by the influence of the minister’s position rather than by due process of law. The court also stayed any criminal proceedings initiated as a result of those directions and issued notices to the state government and Anil Vij to respond by April 21.
The High Court was hearing a petition filed by SDO Rahul Yadav, who alleged that his suspension and the criminal case were ordered only to “appease the public.” He argued that the District Grievance Committee (DGC), chaired by Minister Anil Vij, had no legal power to suspend an officer or to direct the filing of a police case. According to service rules and the Constitution of India, such powers rest solely with the competent authority — in this case, the Managing Director of UHBVN.
Yadav told the court that during the DGC meeting held on October 10, 2025, Minister Vij ordered his suspension after hearing a complaint from one Balwinder Singh, who accused the SDO of demanding a bribe for issuing an electricity connection for his poultry farm. Following this meeting, the Superintending Engineer of UHBVN issued a communication on October 13, instructing subordinates to take action in line with the minister’s order.
However, the SDO explained that the complaint was based on a misunderstanding. He said that Balwinder Singh’s son, Abhinav, had applied multiple times for a permanent electricity connection for his poultry farm. But the applications were rejected each time because the structure was still under construction and the required safety and compliance documents were missing. Instead of fulfilling these requirements, the complainant allegedly filed a false bribery complaint.
ALSO READ: How Cyclone Montha got its name and what it means
ALSO READ: How data is shaping our future decisions and opportunities
The court observed that the DGC is a “non-statutory body” with no authority to initiate disciplinary or criminal action against government officers. It can only forward complaints to competent authorities for consideration. Justice Brar emphasized that disciplinary proceedings must follow the prescribed service rules and cannot be influenced by external pressures or political interventions.
The bench said, “Prima facie, the disciplinary action of placing the petitioner under suspension has only been motivated by the declaration made by respondent No.7 (Anil Vij), on account of the influence his designation wields.” The court warned that allowing such politically influenced actions could undermine the principles of fairness and the constitutional protection provided to state employees.
Justice Brar further observed that state employees are constitutionally protected under Article 309 of the Indian Constitution. This provision ensures that government employees are governed by clearly defined service rules framed by the employer, which guarantee fair and consistent treatment. The court stressed that these rules form a “predictable and coherent system” free from arbitrariness.
The court noted, “It is of the utmost importance that the actions of the state and its instrumentalities do not appear whimsical and fanciful lest it may erode the faith of the public in the constitutional promise of the rule of law.” It added that the integrity of the disciplinary process must remain intact, and such matters should be handled by designated authorities, not political figures.
In its order, the High Court made it clear that the suspension order, any communication made to implement it, and all subsequent actions based on the DGC’s directions would remain stayed until further notice. The bench also stated that no coercive action should be taken against Rahul Yadav in connection with the committee’s recommendations from the October 10 meeting.
The court’s decision sends a strong reminder that grievance committees, even those chaired by ministers, cannot overstep their jurisdiction or bypass legal procedures. While the DGC serves an important role in addressing public complaints, it does not have statutory powers to discipline officers or interfere in administrative matters.
Legal experts noted that the ruling reinforces the separation between administrative and political functions. They pointed out that ministers can only recommend actions, but the final decisions regarding service matters must rest with the competent authorities as per the established rules.
The High Court’s stay order also protects the petitioner from any immediate disciplinary or criminal consequences. The state government and Minister Anil Vij have been asked to submit their formal responses before the next hearing in April 2026. Until then, the suspension and related proceedings remain frozen.
By halting the minister-directed suspension, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed the principle that public servants cannot be punished or suspended on political whims. Any action against them must follow lawful, fair, and transparent procedures that respect constitutional and administrative safeguards.
Copyright © © 2022 Copyright. All Rights Reserved with Arth Parkash