ARUN MALIK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Arun Malik, Sub Division Officer, Irrigation Department, Haryana has filed the present writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and he has made a prayer for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16th August, 2001 (Annexure P-2) vide which the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the plea that the said order is totally illegal and arbitrary and has been passed with a mala fide intention at the behest of respondent No. 2 Shri Om Parkash Chautala, the present Chief Minister of Haryana. The petitioner has further made a prayer that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to revoke the aforesaid order of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that Shri Randeep Surjewala is a political rival of respondent No. 2. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of Shri Randeep Surjewala who contested the election on the Congress ticket against Shri Om Parkash Chautala in the assembly elections held in February 2000 from Narwana Constituency. The said Shri Randeep Surjewala is the son of Shri Shamsher Singh Surjewala, a senior Congress leader who is elder brother of Shri Tarif Singh, father-in-law of the petitioner. Right from the day when respondent No. 2 assumed the charge of the office of the Chief Minister, the petitioner has continuously been harassed either by way of frequent transfers or with false complaints, Shri Chautala (respondent No. 2) came to power in the State of Haryana in July 1999. In October 1999, the petitioner was transferred from Gohana to Rohtak where he worked only for less than one and a half year. Thereafter, in April 2000 the petitioner was transferred from Rohtak to Chandigarh. In May 2000 the said order was abruptly cancelled. In June 2001, the petitioner was again transferred om Rohtak to Chandigarh where he is still continuing. In the month of October 2000 an anonymous complaint was procured against the petitioner which was addressed to the Chief Minister Haryana. The said complaint was marked by respondent No. 2 to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Haryana. The said complaint was enquired into by the Chief Vigilance Officer-cum-Joint Secretary, Irrigation Department. In the said inquiry, the petitioner was associated but a copy of the complaint was not supplied. The allegations in the complaint were that the petitioner who is son-in-law of Shri Tarif Singh, has sent his Maruti Car No. 704 and Japanese Toyota No. 704 twice in the election at Narwana against the Hon'ble Chief Minister. It was further alleged that the petitioner used the foul language against respondent No. 2 and used to make intensive propaganda against the Chief Minister and even spoke from stage seeking votes against him claiming that Shri Randeep Surjewala would become a Minister. It was also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner took part in the elections of Member of Parliament from Bhiwani and he is close to Shri Jagger Singh Malik who was a Minister in the Government of Shri Bansi Lal and went to Bhiwani with him and handed over Rs. 50,000/- to Shri Surinder son of Shri Bansi Lal, which amount he had earned in an illegal manner through allotment of different works in favour of the relatives of Shri Jagbir Singh and the Political Secretary of Shri Surjewala.

(3.) The inquiry officer finding no truth in the allegations made in the anonymous complaint, the same was filed by the Chief Vigilance Officer with the approval of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Irrigation Department Haryana, in the month of May 2001. Since the complaint was received by the Chief Vigilance Officer, Haryana from the office of respondent No. 2, therefore, the information that the complaint has been enquired into and has been filed, was sent to the office of respondent No. 2 who showed his displeasure to the filing of the complaint against the petitioner and directed that the complaint should again be enquired into by the Director, State Vigilance Bureau Haryana and was so upset that the petitioner had been exonerated and that he went to the extent of ordering that action should be taken against the Chief Vigilance Officer who had filed the complaint. This proves the mala fide on the part of the respondent No. 2. The inquiry was again marked to the Director, State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana but till date the petitioner has never been called by the said Bureau in the inquiry. Rather the petitioner has been placed under suspension, vide order dated 16th August, 2001 (Annexure P-2). It is alleged by the petitioner that a bare perusal of the order dated 16th August, 200 would show that no reasons have been assigned as to why the petitioner is being suspended. He has been placed under suspension on account of political rivalry. The earlier anonymous complaint had already been enquired into by the Chief Vigilance Officer. He did not recommend any action. In these circumstances, there was hardly any justification on the part of the Government to suspend the petitioner. It is further alleged by the petitioner that there is no inquiry pending against him nor it is contemplated. Therefore, there is no justification with the respondent to place the petitioner under suspension.