Chandigarh, Oct. 29 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court stayed suspension order and criminal proceedings ordered by Haryana energy minister Anil Vij against a sub-divisional officer (SDO) of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN) on October 10. "Prima facie, the disciplinary action of placing the petitioner under suspension has only been motivated by the declaration made by respondent No.7 (Anil Vij), on account of the influence his designation wields," the bench of justice Harpreet Singh Brar noted while passing the order. The court was hearing a petition from SDO, sub division, UHBVN, Guhla, Rahul Yadav who had approached high court alleging that the District Grievance Committee (DGC) chaired by Vij directed that the petitioner be suspended from service and an FIR be registered against him, merely to "appease the public". The DGC has no authority to pass such orders as only the managing director, UHBVN, being the competent authority, can make any decisions regarding the service of the petitioner, in accordance with the applicable service rules in terms of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, it was argued. The court was further informed that under the influence of the minister a communication was made dated October 13 by the superintending engineer directing appropriate action to give effect to the directions issued by the minister. Vij had ordered the same while conducting a meeting of District Grievance Committee (DGC), Kaithal on a complaint made by one Balwinder Singh, who had levelled allegations of seeking bribe against the SDO for the grant of an electricity connection. SDO's submissions were that one Abhinav, son of the complainant, had submitted multiple applications for a permanent electricity connection for a poultry farm but rejected on the ground that the structure was under construction, some other compliances were also to be made by the applicant. But the same were not made and the complainant instead chose to file a complaint against the petitioner SDO. The court observed that the complaint was brought before the DGC, which is a non-statutory body with no power to initiate any action in this regard. "At the most, it can forward the complaint to the competent authority," the court observed, adding that the disciplinary proceedings possess a certain sacrosanct nature and have to be carried out strictly in terms of the prescribed procedure. "The state employees are constitutionally protected by Article 309 to be governed as per the conditions of service framed by the employer. By framing service rules, the state employer has pledged to its employees a predictable coherent system that is free from the vice of arbitrariness. It is of the utmost importance that the actions of the state and its instrumentalities do not appear whimsical and fanciful lest it may erode the faith of the public in the constitutional promise of the rule of law," the court further noted. "In the meantime, impugned communication .and any consequent actions arising therefrom shall remain stayed. No coercive action be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the directions of the District Grievance Committee, Kaithal in the meeting held on 10.10.2025, till further orders," the court ordered while seeking response from the state government and the minister by April 21....