JEET SINGH KHURANA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has assailed the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Karnal whereby the re-instatement of the petitioner was ordered but it was directed that he should not be posted as Office Superintendent again.

(2.) THE relevant facts for appreciation of the controversy are as under :the petitioner was Octroi Inspector in the service of respondent No. 4. He was assigned the additional duties of a Superintendent. He was placed under suspension vide order dated April 4, 1:989. Respondent No, 4 wrote to the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the order of suspension. After the order of suspension was passed no Charge sheet was served on the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner issued the impugned order.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the petitioner was suspended- when he was working as office Superintendent. Although he has been reinstated but the. direction that he will not be posted as Office Superintendent again casts a stigma. There is a mediocre substance in it. It is correct that the petitioner was assigned the duties of the Office superintendent in addition to his duties as Octroi Inspector. He was never promoted as Office Superintendent. He was placed under suspension when he was performing the duties of Office Superintendent. It is for the employer to assign duties to its employees. It has to make a decision whether to assign the additional duties or not. The Deputy Commissioner at the relevant time had, thought that the duties of Office Superintendent should not be assigned to the petitioner. No fault can be found in it However, the tenor of the order indicates that the Deputy Commissioner had opined that the petitioner shall not be posted as Office Superintendent again. This to my mind causes a reflection and a stigma and may be treated as a bar for all times to corns against the petitioner for promotion as office Supernitendent and for assigning additipnal duties of Office Suporintendeat, if need be. Consequently, the directions contained in the order dated 25-5-l989 to the effect that the petitioner shall" not be posted as Office Superintendent again are quashed. The suspension order has been revoked. The petitioner is an Octroi Inspector in the service3 of respondent No. 4 and it is for the appropriate authorities to decide whether to assign him the additional duties or not. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.