HC quashes punishment of Assistant District Attorney
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the punishment of an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) imposed by the Haryana Government. Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj cited lack of evidence and misapplication of administrative instructions while passing the order. The court held that the ADA could not be held liable for non-appearance in the court on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) in the absence of specific instructions from the administrative department.
“I find that the order dated January 28, 2022, imposing punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana is not based upon objective consideration of its own orders and tends to punish the Assistant District Attorney for no fault, instead of taking action against the administrative officer who was at lapse and chose not to offer any explanation to the repeated letters being sent by the petitioner. The impugned order is hence bad and liable to be set aside," Justice Bhardwaj said.
Appearing before the Bench, advocate Dinesh Kumar Jangra contended that the petitioner, an ADA in Panchkula, was proceeded against for failing to appear on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer in 15 civil suits filed by landowners against recovery notices. The petitioner argued that he had appeared on behalf of the State of Haryana through the Collector but did not represent the LAO due to the lack of instructions, despite sending multiple letters requesting clarity.
He said the government had issued a memo on April 20, 2016, stating that the District Attorney’s office should not appear on behalf of any department without instructions from the administrative department. However, the memo was overruled by a subsequent order on September 11, 2017, which mandated appearance, regardless of instructions. By then, the status quo orders in the civil suits had already been passed.
Justice Bhardwaj observed that the petitioner had acted diligently and could not be faulted for following the government’s instructions. “It is evident from a perusal of the articles of charge or statement of allegations that there is no reference of any instructions/orders that has been made by the presenting officer before the inquiry officer of which the petitioner was in breach. The respondent-department cannot take benefits of its own lapse or draw any analogy on conjectures and generalised assumptions about the functions to be discharged.”
The Bench added that the primary responsibility in departmental proceedings lay with the administrative department. In the absence of any violation of instructions or office orders, an employee could not be held guilty for failing to perform a duty they were not explicitly mandated to carry out.
Justice Bhardwaj asserted: “The primary burden in departmental proceedings is to be discharged by the department concerned. In the absence of any instructions or office orders being violated, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of having committed any violation in the non-performance of a specific duty which he was not ordained to perform.”