Allowed

K. Chandrashekhar v. Chief Election Commissioner

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2023WP/1898/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a suspension order ultimately not ratifying an earlier order by an authority lacking jurisdiction. The Supreme Court quashed the suspension order, granted liberty to competent authority for independent disciplinary action, and directed reinstatement with regular duty assignment excluding election duties pending final decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned suspension order dated 31.12.2022 quashed. Liberty to fifth respondent to decide independently. Petitioners to be assigned regular work excluding election duties.

K. Chandrashekhar Vs Chief Election Commissioner — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1898 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1898 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

K. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. LATE B. KESHAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER, MAHADEVAPURA, R/AT NO. 937, 6^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK, BSK I STAGE, HANUMANTHNAGARA, BENGALURU-560 050.

¶10

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SUHAIL AHMED S/O. LATE NAZEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WORKING AS ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER, SHIVAJI NAGAR, R/AT NO. 22, AHMED SAIT ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560005.

¶12

V. B. BHIMASHANKAR S/O. VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER, CHICKPET,

¶13

¶14

WP No. 1898 of 2023

¶15

R/AT NO. 34, 8^TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, HEBBAL, KEMPAPURA, BENGALURU-560 024.

¶16

H. GULTAJ FATHIMA W/O. MUQTAR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER, R/AT NO. 6, 4^TH A CROSS, OPPOSITE JAYADEVA HOSPITAL, GURAPPANAPALYA, BANGALORE SOUTH, TAVEREKERE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560 029.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SMT. ANUSHA L.,ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, NIRVACHANSADAN, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶21

THE SECRETARY / CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, 2^ND AND 3^RD FLOOR, NO. 16, BALLARI ROAD, SADASHIVANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 080.

¶22

DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE,

¶23

¶24

WP No. 1898 of 2023

¶25

BENGALURU-560 002.

¶26

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, ROOM NO. 320, 3^RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶27

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO. 431, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI.SANJEEV., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. M.S. NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R4 AND R5; VIDE ORDER DATED 25.01.2023; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION PASSED BY R-5 DATED 31/12/2022 BEARING NO. NAE207BBAC 2022 (ANNEXURE-Z) AS THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION IS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONERS AND ASSIGN DUTIES INCLUDING A DIRECTION OR ORDERS FOR PAYMENT OF REGULAR SALARY FROM 21/11/2022 TILL REINSTATEMENT.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

¶33

WP No. 1898 of 2023

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The short question for consideration in this petition is: whether the suspension order dated 31.12.2022 [as per Annexure-Z] is sustainable in law . Initially, the Chief Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike [ the Chief Commissioner, BBMP ] has suspended the first to third petitioners from service on 21.11.2022 because of certain allegations in discharge of their duties for the Election Commission, and the Chief Commissioner, BBMP has also suspended the fourth petitioner on similar allegations but on 03.12.2022. After these orders, the Deputy Secretary, Department of Urban Development has issued the impugned order keeping the petitioners under suspension.

¶36

The impugned order which in its material part reads as under:

¶37

“¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå:£ÀCE90 JAJ£ïAiÀÄÄ 2014(¨sÁ-1), ¢£ÁAPÀ:16.03.2020 gÀ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁªÀ½ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ©.©.JA.¦ AiÀÄ UÀÆæ¥ï – J ªÀÈAzÀzÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥sÁæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢üÞ E¯ÁSÉ

¶38

¶39

WP No. 1898 of 2023

¶40

DVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ PÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ UÀÆæ¥ï – J ªÀÈAzÀzÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ ºAvÀ zÀ °è CªÀ iÁ£À vÀ ÄÛ ¥À r¸À ¯ÁVgÀ ÄªÀ DzÀ Ã±É PÀ Ì ¸É PÁðgÀ zÀ À Wl£À ÆÃvÉ ÛgÀ C£À ÄªÀ ÆÃzÉ £À PÉ ÆÃjÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.”

¶41

(underlining is by this Court)

¶42

3. Sri V. Lakshminarayana, the learned

¶43

Senior counsel for the petitioners, submits that it would be indisputable that the Chief Commissioner, BBMP could not have exercised jurisdiction under Rule 10 of the relevant CCA Rules to keep the petitioners under suspension, and if the Deputy Secretary, Department of Urban Development had to keep the petitioners under suspension, because the Chief Commissioner, BBMP could not keep them under suspension, it could not have been by way of a ratification of the earlier decision by the said Chief Commissioner. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Urban Development, should have examined the allegations against the petitioners independently rather than ratifying a conclusion by the authority which had no jurisdiction.

¶44

¶45

WP No. 1898 of 2023

¶46

4. Sri V. Lakshminarayana also submits that

¶47

if the impugned order as per Annexure-Z yields because of the aforesaid reason, the petitioners will be entitled for reinstatement. The fourth petitioner must be reinstated as she has not at all been arrested, and even the other petitioners because they were taken into custody on 27.11.2022 only after the initial suspension order dated 21.11.2022.

¶48

Though both Sri M.S.Nagaraja, the

¶49

learned Additional Government Advocate for fourth

¶50

and fifth respondent, and Sri B.L. Sanjeev, the learned counsel for the third respondent, endeavor to justify the impugned order at Annexure-Z, they are unable to point out the circumstances from which it can be gathered that the impugned order is not an order ratifying the initial suspension orders by the Chief Commissioner, BBMP and is an independent consideration of the material against the petitioners. In fact, they have not placed on record any material

¶51

¶52

WP No. 1898 of 2023

¶53

that could persuade this Court to opine that the impugned order is not an order of ratification. Therefore, the impugned order [Annexure -Z] cannot be sustained.

¶54

Consequent to quashing of the impugned suspension order, generally, the petitioners must be reinstated but with liberty to the competent authority to take appropriate action against the petitioners as is permissible in law, including keeping the petitioners under suspension. Sri B.L. Sanjeev, supported by Sri.M.S.Nagaraja, submits that given the nature of the allegations, the petitioners cannot insist on being assigned duty as they were before the initial suspension order dated 21.11.2022 or 03.12.2022.

¶55

The petitioners before the first suspension orders were discharging certain duties for the election Commission and indeed, the petitioners cannot insist upon assignment of any election duty. However, until there is a decision taken by the fifth respondent [ the

¶56

¶57

WP No. 1898 of 2023

¶58

admitted Disciplinary Authority under the relevant CCA Rules] in accordance with the applicable laws in the light of the allegations against the petitioners, they must be assigned their regular work. For the foregoing, the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

The petition is allowed, and the impugned order [Annexure-Z] dated 31.12.2022 is quashed but with liberty to the fifth respondent to take appropriate decision on due consideration of all the materials in accordance with law with a direction that such decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible. The petitioners shall be, subject to such decision, assigned work as per the post that they held prior to 21.11.2022/03.12.2022 while clarifying that there cannot be any assignment of election duty.

¶61

SA ct:sr

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

K. Chandrashekhar v. Chief Election Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Chandrashekhar v. Chief Election Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tappers Service Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Rajen K Bhatha Vs the Assistant Director of Income Tax

Deepa Nanakram Varyani Vs the Assistant Director of Income Tax

Sri Chikkabasavegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Suraj Prasad Swrankar Vs Kudremukha Iron Ore Company Limited

Miss D Manjula Vs the State of Karnataka