Skipped SIR duty after wife’s death: High court relief for Hisar teacher, DEO, others fined ₹50,000

The bench of justice HS Brar found that the entire controversy arose from a lack of coordination within the election machinery, where substitute BLOs were appointed on paper without their portal mapping

The Punjab and Haryana high court has fined two Haryana officials over departmental inquiry and suspension of a teacher, who sought to skip Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Haryana’s Hisar following his wife’s death.

The court added that the period during which the petitioner remained under suspension would be treated as period spent on duty for all intents and purposes. (HT File)

The court has imposed a fine of ₹50,000 on the district elementary education officer (DEO), Hisar and the electoral registration officer (ERO)-cum-sub divisional officer (SDO-Civil), Barwala for “unnecessarily consuming” the court’s time. The copy of the order has been ordered to be sent to the chief electoral officer, Haryana for information and for issuance of necessary instructions.

The teacher, Sunil Kumar works as junior basic teacher (JBT) in Barwala and was discharging duties of a booth level officer (BLO) for about 11 years. His wife died in September 2025, leaving him as the sole caregiver of his mother, aged 83, and his children.

On September 26, 2025 he approached DEO, Hisar seeking his release from BLO duty. His case was favourably forwarded by authorities to SDO (civil), Hisar, and three teachers were appointed in succession, as his replacement. However, none of them joined. Subsequently, disciplinary action was initiated against him and he was suspended for remaining absent from the SIR duty.

The bench of justice HS Brar found that the entire controversy arose from a lack of coordination within the election machinery, where substitute BLOs were appointed on paper without their joining and portal mapping being ensured, and the outgoing BLO was never told in writing whether he stood relieved. “Such a state of affairs is likely to recur unless corrective steps are taken at the district level,” the court observed.

“This court cannot remain oblivious to the manner in which the petitioner has been treated by the respondents. A teacher who lost his wife and was left to care for his aged mother and children sought release from additional election duty through the proper channel. Instead of deciding his application, the respondents appointed one substitute after another without ensuring that any of them actually joined.”

“They then held the petitioner responsible for the default of others, replaced him, and thereafter suspended him for a duty he no longer held, on an allegation of missing a training whose date they themselves cannot state,” the court recorded. It added that even before the court, the authorities rather than owning up to the lapses, sought to justify the action with fresh grounds which find no mention in the initial order passed against him.

The court deprecated the conduct of DEO and SDO (civil) for compelling the teacher to approach the court and hence, have been burdened with the fine.

The court directed quashing of proceedings and revoked suspension order and added that the period during which the petitioner remained under suspension would be treated as period spent on duty for all intents and purposes, and would be entitled to full pay and allowances for that period. It also directed that before assigning any BLO duty to the petitioner in future, the authorities would consider the circumstances he narrated in his initial application.