CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16721 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 03, 2009 Harbans Lal Mehta .....Petitioner VERSUS Government of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has impugned his suspension pleading malafides on the part of the respondents for unfairly and unjustly placing him under suspension. As per the petitioner, he was directed by respondent No.2 to issue ration card to respondent No.5, which he refused as per the norms, but he has been placed under suspension for not complying with the directions of respondent No.2. Respondent No.5 had made an application for supply of ration card, giving her address, House No.228, Ward No.8, Housing Board Colony, Kalka. She claimed herself to be permanent resident CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16721 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: of this place for more than 15 years. Inspector Sukhchain Singh went for verification and after recording the statements of neighbourers gave report that respondent No.5 was permanently living in the government accommodation alongwith her husband at House No.1396, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh. He also reported that the information supplied by respondent No.5 was false. Respondent No.6, husband of respondent No.5 filed a complaint against the petitioner, which is stated to be false, making allegation against him for not issuing him a ration card without justification. Petitioner further claims that Secretary of respondent No.2 gave a call to Pardeep Sharma, issuing direction that respondent No.2 has directed the petitioner to issue ration card to respondent No.5. When the petitioner received a call from respondent No.3, he apprised him about the report of inspection carried out by Sukhchain Singh, Inspector, and expressed his inability to issue ration card. This happened on 25.8.2009 and on the same day, the order suspending the petitioner was issued. Even subsequent enquiries have also shown that respondent No.5 was living with her husband at Chandigarh and had sought ration card by giving false information of she being resident of Kalka. In this background, the counsel would urge that the suspension of the petitioner is clearly because the petitioner had acted as per the rules and regulations and is actuated with malafides on the part of respondent No.2. From the case as pleaded, it may sound so but the deeper analysis would reveal something more than what is apparently available on record. The order suspending the petitioner CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16721 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: may even give this impression as no reasons are disclosed in the order. A perusal of the complaint, however, would show that the petitioner not only refused to issue the ration card even after completion of formalities but had used foul and abusive language, for which the complaint was made by respondent No.6, who is husband of respondent No.5 and is a Government servant. The petitioner being responsible to issue ration card was well within his rights to not issue the ration card if it could not be legally issued but he had no right to abuse or use abusive language against any applicant. The charge sheet issued to the petitioner after placing him under suspension is not for non-issuing of the ration card alone but for using abusive language, for which he has been held responsible. The aspect of not issuing ration card apparently has been mentioned as a detail but is not a gravamen of the misconduct. One of the charge alleged against the petitioner is that he had abused the old father of the complainant and, thus, has misused his office. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submission that father of the petitioner has died long ago and hence, these allegations are false. The petitioner has, thus, not only impugned his suspension order but has prayed for quashing the charge sheet. The petitioner has been placed under suspension for having committed a misconduct. He has to prove that the allegations made against him are either false or not made out. The petitioner is to prove his innocence before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner can not seek adjudication of disputed questions of facts as to whether he had abused the complainant's wife or his father. All these facts are required to be established by the Department and the petitioner CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16721 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: would get ample opportunity to prove his innocence. Suspension is not a punishment, which can be impugned. No doubt, the suspension, if ordered without basis or justification or with malafides, may be open to challenge but the petitioner has not been able to establish malafide with sufficient proof. The person who spoke to the petitioner was not respondent No.2 but his Secretary. In this background, prima-facie allegation of malafide against the Commissioner and Secretary would appear little far-fetched. In any case, the malafides are required to be established by a strict proof and these can not be accepted merely on the basis of averments made in the petition. The interference in the charge sheet, at this stage, certainly is not called for. The petitioner would be free and at liberty to prove malafide before the enquiry, if held and then be at liberty to take any action in accordance with law. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. November 03, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE