The High Court quashed a suspension order issued against an Environmental Officer for failing to follow statutory procedures, lack of prior government approval, and violation of natural justice by proceeding based on a withdrawn meeting agenda.
The impugned suspension order dated 3.1.2024 is quashed and set aside.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.1430 OF 2024(S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C.R. MANJUNATH S/O LATE K RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WAS WORKING AS ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, RAMANAGARA-562159
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRITHVEESH M K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2 . THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NO 49, PARISARA BHAVAN, CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU-560001
2
3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY, 4TH FLOOR, GATE NO 2, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2; SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION DATED 03/01/2024 BEARING NO. MaaNiMa 57 AaaDaA 2023/1743 PASSED BY THE R2 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENLTY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned order of suspension dated 3.1.2024 passed by respondent No.2.
A company by name Enviro Recyclean Private Limited filed an application requesting for issuance of “Consent For Establishment”(CFE) to establish a plant for the purpose of re-processing of all types of plastic wastes at Ramanagara. The petitioner on physical verification of the subject premises submitted a report indicating that the uploaded pictures and photos are not matching the machineries as submitted by the industry.
4
indicating that audit reveals certain non-compliances of extant Rules by the industry/occupier. A direction was also issued to respondent No.2 to first conduct a detailed enquiry into the issue of CFE and consent for occupation (CFO) in favour of the company and then to fix the liability on the erring officials and take disciplinary action.
present petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation regarding alleged dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner in submitting his field verification report. This show cause notice is issued on 15.11.2023.
5
Senior Environmental officer and the present petitioner under suspension and to transfer other two officials of the Board. Respondent No.2 without obtaining prior approval of respondent No.3Government and without a decision being taken for passing a resolution in the matter, passed the impugned suspension order.
The said impugned suspension order is under challenge.
6
petitioner under suspension. Placing reliance on the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board For Prevention And Control Of Water Pollution (Procedure For Transaction of Business And The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)(Amendment) Rules, 1976 (for short “Rules, 1976”) and the 2010 amendment brought to the said Rules (for short “Amendment Rules, 2010”), he would vehemently argue and contend that Rule 15 of Rules, 1976 clearly contemplates that respondent No.2 cannot place the petitioner under suspension without prior approval of the Government. He would vehemently argue and contend that CPCB vide communication dated 26.10.2023 has directed respondent No.2 to first conduct a detailed enquiry into the issue of CFE and CFO in favour of Enviro Recyclean Private Limited and then fix liability on the erring officials and take disciplinary action. He would vehemently argue and
7
contend that respondent No.2 in a whimsical manner has invoked Rule 3 (i)(ii)(iii) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 2020 (for short “KCSRs”) without there being an iota of evidence of misconduct by the petitioner. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:
“1. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Vs. Shardul Singh – 1970 (1) SCC 108.
2. M/s Bengal Enamel Works Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal – 1970 (1) SCC 112.
3. General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and Another Vs Dr.Subash Chandra Yadav & Another - (1988) 2 SCC 351.
4. Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs. Union of India and Another – (2020) 13 SCC 56.
5. Inayathulla.S Vs. Deputy Conservator of Forests and Another – 1982 SCC Online Kar 89.
6. S.Nagaraja Vs State of Karnataka & Others – 2021 SCC Online Kar 12627.”
8
appearing for respondents would however contend that based on report submitted by Chief Environmental Officer-3 to respondent No.3, showcause notice was issued to the petitioner and on the same day, copy was sent to the Government. Referring to the resolution passed by respondent No.1-Board, he would contend that it is the Board that resolved to suspend the erring officials on 23.11.2023 and Government has approved and has directed the Board to take actions against the concerned officers on 24.11.2023. The first respondent Board holds a Board Meeting on 20.12.2023 under Subject No.243 and passes a resolution for implementing the Government Resolution dated 24.11.2023 and the impugned suspension order is passed by respondent No.2-Chairman on 3.1.2024.
9
reliance on the following judgments:
“1. Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Vs. Sunil - (2006) 5 SCC 96.
2. National Institute of Technology and Anr. Vs. Pannalal Choudhary & Anr – (2015) 11 SCC 669.”
Court would find that the impugned suspension order
does not indicate that procedural fairness is followed by the authority. The report submitted by the audit team of CPCB indicates that directions were issued to conduct a detailed enquiry into the issue of CFE and CFO to ascertain how physical verification report was
approved by the respondent No.1-Board on EPR portal and then fix liability on erring officials. The suspension order is not preceded by a detailed enquiry as directed by CPCB.
10
principles of natural justice is followed in the present case on hand. Show-cause notice dated 15.11.2023 is issued to the petitioner by the Chairman of the Board seeking explanation within three days. Member Secretary of Respondent No.1-Board writes to the Government that show-cause notice is issued to the petitioner. Show-cause notice is served on the petitioner on 17.11.2023. Petitioner seeks seven days time to submit his reply on 18.11.2023. Respondent No.2-Chairman approved the request and extended the time till 25.11.2023. In the interregnum, it is Member Secretary who decides to place the petitioner under suspension and directs to place the proposal before the Government on 23.11.2023. Though petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 24.11.2023, respondent No.3 strangely directs respondent No.1-Board to place the petitioner and
11
another person under suspension, which is impugned in the captioned petition. Suspension order is dated 3.1.2024.
its wisdom has called upon petitioner to offer explanation by issuing show-cause notice, then the said employee deserves to be heard before suspension takes place. An employee should have an opportunity to present his evidence to support his position. The above dates give a clear indication that respondents in a hasty manner have proceeded to place petitioner under suspension. If a show-cause notice was issued and was served on the petitioner only on 17.11.2023 and the fact that the Chairman approved the request
12
and extended time till 25.11.2023, the Member Secretary of respondent No.1-Board decides to place the petitioner under suspension and a proposal was placed before respondent No.3-State. Though respondent No.2-Chairman has extended time till 25.11.2023 to enable the petitioner to offer his explanation, respondent No.1-State on 24.11.2023 directs respondent No.1-Board to place the petitioner under suspension. Therefore, it is clearly evident that the petitioner’s explanation vide Annexure-K1 is neither adverted by respondent No.1-Board nor by respondent No.3-State.
13
|243:10|ªÉÄÃ|| J¤égÉÆà j¸ÉÊQèÃ£ï ¥ÉæöÊ
°., ºÁgÉÆúÀ½î, gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ
¥Áè¹ÖPï vÁådå ªÀÄgÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÀÌgÀuÁ
WÀlPÀzÀ
¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ
¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ
¤ÃrgÀĪÀ
¤zÉÃð±À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß
C£ÀĵÁ×£ÀUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.|ö
Placing the subjects before the
Board without the approval of
Chairman in unlawful and invalid.
The CPCB has issued directions
under Section 5 of EP Act to
Chairman, KSPCB. The Board has
issued Show Cause Notice to the
Officers
and
reply
has
been
received.
Further,
the
consent
issued to the industry has been
withdrawn and the EPR registration
has been revoked. The Action is
being taken as per provisions of
the law.|
|---|---|---|
that the proceedings in Agenda No.243:10 are unlawful and invalid, the Member Secretary of respondent No.1-Board could not have unilaterally decided to place the proposal before respondent No.3State recommending petitioner’s suspension. The respondent No.2-Chairman on 16.12.2023 has written to all Board Members that agenda 243:10 is withdrawn since the same is placed without his approval. Chairman having raised his objections and
14
having withdrawn the agenda 243:10 could not have issued the suspension order vide Annexure-“A”.
these infractions which clearly demonstrate that the impugned suspension order is prima facie found to be in contravention of principles of natural justice and procedural equity. The authorities have failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice which mandates that an individual must be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard prior to imposition of any punitive measures.
issue show-cause notice also gives an indication that the authority intended a pre-suspension hearing. Failure to provide the delinquent individual with a presuspension hearing not only runs afoul of procedural fairness but has also exposed the decision of the
15
authority in placing the petitioner under suspension and therefore, would warrant judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Court is more than satisfied that suspension order was issued in violation of relevant laws, rules and procedures. This Court is also convinced that suspension order lacks a proper legal basis. The dissent note put by the Chairman also demonstrates that the suspension order suffers from arbitrariness and therefore, this Court is compelled to intervene so as to prevent an abuse of administrative authority.
impugned suspension order is liable to be quashed reserving liberty to the respondents to examine the explanation offered by the petitioner to the showcause notice as per Annexure-K1. If the Chairman of
16
the Board has put a dissent note and the proceedings of the Board Meeting indicates that agenda 243:10 of the Board meeting held on 20.12.2023 is withdrawn, the suspension order automatically stands vitiated.
17
respondent No.1-Board from initiating proceedings against erring officials in accordance with law.
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned suspension order dated
3.1.2024 passed by respondent No.2 is
hereby set aside.
Sd/JUDGE
*alb/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suspension order violated principles of natural justice due to lack of meaningful pre-suspension hearing and reliance on a withdrawn agenda item.
Whether the authority lacked jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner without prior government approval and without following statutory procedures.
Whether the suspension order suffered from arbitrariness due to procedural illegality and dissent by the Chairman.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Vs. Shardul SinghReferred¶39
State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Vs. Shardul Singh – 1970 (1) SCC 108 · Who else cites this
M/s Bengal Enamel Works Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West BengalReferred¶39
M/s Bengal Enamel Works Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal – 1970 (1) SCC 112 · Who else cites this
General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and Another Vs Dr.Subash Chandra Yadav & AnotherReferred¶39
General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and Another Vs Dr.Subash Chandra Yadav & Another - (1988) 2 SCC 351 · Who else cites this
Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs. Union of India and AnotherReferred¶39
Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs. Union of India and Another – (2020) 13 SCC 56 · Who else cites this
Inayathulla.S Vs. Deputy Conservator of Forests and AnotherReferred¶39
Inayathulla.S Vs. Deputy Conservator of Forests and Another – 1982 SCC Online Kar 89 · Who else cites this
S.Nagaraja Vs State of Karnataka & OthersReferred¶39
S.Nagaraja Vs State of Karnataka & Others – 2021 SCC Online Kar 12627 · Who else cites this
Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Vs. SunilReferred¶51
Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Vs. Sunil - (2006) 5 SCC 96 · Who else cites this
National Institute of Technology and Anr. Vs. Pannalal Choudhary & AnrReferred¶51
National Institute of Technology and Anr. Vs. Pannalal Choudhary & Anr – (2015) 11 SCC 669 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
SRI C.R. MANJUNATH
THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
