The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed the suspension of a teacher who had asked to be relieved from election duty after his wife died [Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others]

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar deprecated the conduct of State authorities in "strongest terms" and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the District Elementary Education Officer, Hisar and the Electoral Registration Officer, 51-Barwala assembly constituency.

The Court said that the authorities were blowing hot and cold in the same breath by claiming that the teacher Sunil Kumar was never relieved from the duty of booth level officer (BLO), while three teachers were successively appointed in his place.

"A teacher who had 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 said.

The Court also quashed the proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Kumar and directed that before assigning him any BLO duty in the future, his personal circumstances be taken into consideration.

Taking note of the fact that Kumar has remained without salary from June 2, the Court directed that all his dues be cleared within four weeks.

Kumar was placed under suspension by the District Elementary Education Officer, Hisar on July 7 after the electoral registration officer in Barwala constituency recommended disciplinary action against him for not performing BLO work properly and remaining absent from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) training.

Challenging the decision and the proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him, Kumar's counsel submitted that he was performing the BLO duty for the last 11 years without any adverse remark. However, the counsel added that his circumstances changed after his wife died in September 2025. The Court was informed that after the tragedy, he had sought release from the BLO duty since he is the sole caregiver of his 83-year-old mother and his children.

His request was favourably recommended by the head of the institution and the Block Education Officer, Barwala. Subsequently, three teachers were appointed in his place for the same booth.

No order rejecting his application or requiring him to continue as BLO was ever communicated to him, the Court was told. Despite these facts, he was placed under suspension, his counsel said.

The Court found that the failure of the substitute BLOs to report for duty, or to furnish their mobile and EPIC numbers for updating the official portal, was a lapse attributable to them and to the election machinery.

Such failure cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be fastened upon Kumar, the Court ruled.

It noted that one of the principal allegations against the teacher was that he did not attend SIR training. The Court found that the authorities themselves were unclear about the date on which the training was held.

"Moreover, the respondents themselves admit that none of the three substitute BLOs attended the training held on 08.02.2026, yet nothing has been placed on record to show that any action was taken against any of them," it added.

Such selective treatment and the inability to even state the date of the training, reflects a complete non-application of mind, the Court observed.

The Court concluded that the entire controversy arose from a lack of coordination within the election machinery. 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, the Court found.

It, accordingly, directed the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana to ensure that whenever a BLO is replaced, the order mentioning whether he stands relieved is properly communicated to him in writing. It added that the joining and portal mapping of the substitute BLO should also be completed by the concerned ERO within a reasonable time.

Advocate Arjun Sheoran represented the petitioner.

Deputy Advocate General Naveen Singh Panwar represented the State.

[Read Judgment]