A Block Education Officer challenged his suspension for financial irregularities via a Tribunal order. The High Court found the allegations serious, suspension not a punishment, and based on application of mind, declining to interfere while requiring respondents to consider the petitioner's representation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024 PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO.102905 OF 2024 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
G.M. MUNDINMANI S/O. MALAVVA AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC. BEO, W/A. PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SHIRAHATTI TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT, (NOW UNDER SUSPENSION) R/A: NEERALAGI, HAVERI DISTRICT-561108.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHETANKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitallysigned by K MSOMASHEKAR
K MSOMASHEKAR Location: HighCourt ofKarnatakaDharwadBenchDate:2024.06.1010:40:55+0530
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. EP 04 DGO 2023, BENGALURU DATED 17.02.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7317-DB WP No.102905 of 2024
THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2024 IN APPLICATION NO.10231/2024, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is listed for orders for non-compliance of office objections. By order dated 23.05.2024, time was granted to comply office objections. Till this date, office objections are not complied. Hence, along with office objections, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 20.04.2024 passed in Application No.10231/2024 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi1 , whereby the petitioner’s application challenging the order of suspension is disposed off with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 17.02.2024 (Annexure-A8).
3. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Chetan Kumar for Sri. G.M. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
1 ‘Tribunal’ for short
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7317-DB WP No.102905 of 2024
learned Government Advocate Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar for respondents No.1 to 3 and perused the writ petition papers.
4. The petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.10231/2024 questioning the order of suspension dated 17.02.2024 (Annexure-A5). The petitioner, who is working as Block Education Officer in the Department of Public Instructions, was kept under suspension by order dated 17.02.2024 alleging the following irregularities:
“a) Rs.25,62,000/- and 8,82,000/- were released to the joint account of the head master and SDMC.
b) The administrative approval was taken for Rs.7,50,000/- for the purchase of materials and miscellaneous expenditure. In the said grant quotation was called for Rs.6,98,000/- and purchased the said materials and also remitted the amount of the concerned firms through K2 bill. But the quality of the materials were not verified and taken to the stock as provided under M.C.E. Rules.
c) The grant amount for the purchase of materials was not transferred to the joint account of the head master and SDMC account of the schools as per the Rules. The entire purchase process was conducted at the level of BEO office which is also against the Rules.
d) Rs.1,04,500/- honorarium was paid to the Driver, But no document was provided for having called for tender/quotation for the appointment of the driver.
e) Two computers were purchased on 04.03.2023 and Rs.98,000/- was paid for the said Computers. The name of the school or office is not forthcoming and no receipt for having received for the said two computers is not forthcoming.
f) KTPP Act is violated as work order was issued before getting administrative approval from the Taluka Panchayat.”
5. The Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the
impugned order of suspension does not violate the provision of Rule 10(3) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 19572 and there is prima facie evidence on record connecting the petitioner with misconduct in question. The petitioner had submitted his representation dated 17.02.2024 (Annexure-A8) to the respondent No.2 to revoke the suspension.
6. Learned Government Advocate Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar
would submit that there are serious allegations of financial irregularities against the petitioner and as such, he justifies the order of suspension.
7. The impugned order at Annexure-E dated
17.02.2024 keeping the petitioner under suspension is in
2 ‘CCA Rules, 1957’ for short
exercise of power under Rule 10(1)(d) of CCA Rules, 1957 by respondent No.1. A perusal of the said order would indicate the allegations of financial irregularities against the petitioner. In view of serious nature of allegations and as the order of suspension is not a punishment, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Moreover, the impugned order is based on application of mind to the allegation against the petitioner and in the interest of public service. Hence, we do not find any merit in the petition. However, as directed by the Tribunal, the respondents shall consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.02.2024 vide Annexure-A8.
8. With the above, the petition stands disposed off.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 35
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the suspension of a Block Education Officer under Rule 10(1)(d) CCA Rules 1957 for alleged financial irregularities was liable to be interfered with.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
G.M. Mundinmani
State of Karnataka
The Addl. Commissioner of Department of School Education
The Deputy Director, Department of School Education, Gadag District
S G Pandit
G Basavaraja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
