HC stays Kharar EO’s transfer, issues notice to Punjab govt

Mohali: The Punjab and Haryana high court has stayed the transfer of Kharar municipal council executive officer (EO) Sukhdev Singh and issued a notice of motion to the Punjab govt. The transfer order will remain stayed till the next hearing on Feb 25, 2027.Singh had moved the high court through a civil writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of his transfer from Kharar to nagar panchayat, Mallanwala in Ferozepur, and a stay on its operation.In his plea, Singh claimed he was made a scapegoat after objecting to building plans submitted by a prominent local builder, alleging violations of prescribed norms. He submitted that he had refused to clear certain site plans due to irregularities and that his transfer was ordered the same day he raised objections.After hearing the matter, the court issued notice of motion. Additional Advocate General Ishan Kaushal appeared for the state and accepted notice, while counsel for respondents sought time to seek instructions. The court adjourned the matter to Feb 2027 while granting interim relief.The controversy over the transfer comes amid disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Punjab govt in connection with alleged irregularities in a road recarpeting project in Kharar.The govt had earlier ordered chargesheeting of Singh and assistant municipal engineer Suresh Kumar over alleged supervisory lapses, misuse of municipal funds and financial loss to the exchequer after a newly recarpeted road developed defects within days.The action followed a complaint on the Chief Minister’s Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS) regarding poor quality work on a road leading to Gurdwara Sahib Akali Office and a proposed sports complex.Mohali deputy commissioner Komal Mittal, who conducted the inquiry, flagged gross negligence and major supervisory lapses. The report noted that the road deteriorated within days, pointing to deviation from engineering norms and poor execution.The inspection also found that seal coat work was carried out immediately after laying bituminous layers without adequate curing time, along with issues such as obstructions and poor site planning. Responsibility was fixed on the EO and AME for failing to ensure compliance and effective supervision.