Allowed

Sri. Puttaswamy T S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2024WP/1044/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A suspended bill collector challenged his prolonged suspension following arrest in an incident in which the earlier PDO, similarly suspended, had her suspension revoked. Holding that suspension cannot continue beyond six months and indefinite suspension amounts to de facto punishment, the High Court quashed the suspension order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned suspension order dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure-A) quashed; writ petition allowed.

Sri. Puttaswamy T S Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:12003 WP No. 1044 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1044 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.PUTTASWAMY T S S/O LATE THOPAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS BILL COLLECTOR (NOW UNDER ORDERS OF SUSPENSION) T. BEGUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT RESIDING AT ARASINAKUNTE ADARSHANAGAR NELAMANGALA TALUK – 562 123

¶9

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. B O ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT MULTI STORIED BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:12003 WP No. 1044 of 2024

¶15

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BEERASANDRA, DEVANAHALLI

¶16

BENGALURU – 562 110

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH NELAMANGALA TALUK NELAMANGALA

¶18

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562123

¶19

THE PRESIDENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER T.BEGUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R.1; SRI.M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 TO R.4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS LEADING TO ISSUANCE OF IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.BE.GRA.PUM/BYA.SHISTHUKRAMA/01/2022-23 DTD 21.02.2023 ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE R4 AND AFTER PERUSAL QUASH THE SAME AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12003 WP No. 1044 of 2024

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The captioned writ petition is filed assailing

¶27

impugned order bearing No.T.Be.Gra.Pum/ Shisthukrama

¶28

/01/2022-23 dated 21.02.2023 as

¶29

Annexure-A issued by respondent No.4 in placing the petitioner under suspension.

¶30

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶31

petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the records.

¶32

Respondent No.4 has declined to take action in

¶33

regard to placing the petitioner under suspension. Respondent No.2 – the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath has endorsed that petitioner’s suspension cannot be revoked without prior permission from Lokayukta.

¶34

The petitioner’s grievance before this Court is

¶35

that the present petitioner and earlier PDO by name

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12003 WP No. 1044 of 2024

¶37

Usha M were placed under suspension for the same incident. Based on the alleged incident, the petitioner is arrested on 16.02.2023. The short question that falls for consideration is that;

¶38

Whether order of suspension dated 21.02.2023 can be permitted to operate indefinitely?

¶39

It is a trite law that the suspension order

¶40

cannot be kept in force beyond six months. The petitioner, on parity, is also entitled to seek revocation of the suspension order on the ground that earlier PDO was also placed under suspension for the same incident. The Officials have acted upon and the suspension order is revoked. The fact that suspension order is dated 21.02.2023 and no further action is contemplated by the Department, the said order needs consideration by this Court.

¶41

The case on hand clearly indicates that petitioner is placed under suspension for almost

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12003 WP No. 1044 of 2024

¶43

13 months during which the petitioner has been sidelined from his duties. This prolonged suspension, without a clear resolution or conclusive determination of guilt, effectively operates as a form of punishment. Such an extended period of suspension not only disrupts the petitioner's professional responsibilities but also inflicts significant personal and financial hardship. Moreover, the indefinite nature of the suspension raises serious concerns regarding procedural fairness and due process. Suspension is intended as a temporary measure, typically implemented pending the outcome of an inquiry or investigation. However, when prolonged for an extended duration without resolution, it transforms into a de facto penalty, depriving the petitioner of his livelihood and professional reputation without just cause.

¶44

In light of these considerations, it becomes incumbent upon this Hon'ble Court to intervene and address the petitioner's plight. The Court's indulgence is warranted to ensure that the petitioner's rights are

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:12003 WP No. 1044 of 2024

¶47

safeguarded. It is essential to prevent the petitioner from enduring an indefinite suspension, which not only

¶48

undermines his rights but also erodes the principles of fairness and equity. Therefore, it is imperative for the Court to grant relief to the petitioner and curtail the prolonged suspension, thereby upholding the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice.

¶49

For the reasons stated supra, if earlier PDO

¶50

was placed under suspension for the same alleged incident and if she is reinstated by revoking suspension order, the impugned suspension order cannot be permitted to operate against the petitioner indefinitely and this would lead to miscarriage of justice.

¶51

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the

¶52

view that the suspension order needs to be quashed. Hence, the Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:12003 WP No. 1044 of 2024

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶57

(ii) The impugned order dated 21.02.2023 as per Annexure-A issued by respondent No.4 is hereby quashed.

¶58

(iii) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

NBM

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Sri. Puttaswamy T S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Puttaswamy T S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. G.V. Rajkumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M L Nagaraja Vs Hmt Machine Tools Limited

Anjaneyalu B R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nagaraja B B Vs the State of Karnataka

R M Mariswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Rajani Emp No. 153445 Vs Syndicate Bank