Allowed

Sri Srinath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2024WP/17010/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a suspension order that had exceeded the permissible period under state rules without initiating a formal enquiry. The court quashed the Tribunal's order and the suspension, directing authorities to post the petitioner elsewhere and commence an enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Tribunal and the suspension order dated 24.01.2024 are set aside/voided. Petitioner to be posted elsewhere within two weeks. Enquiry to commence within three months.

Sri Srinath Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46695-DB WP No. 17010 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 17010 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. SRINATH, S/O LATE K. RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE SHIRASTEDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NANJANAGUDU, MYSURU - 571 391. AND RESIDING AT: NO.3643, 18^tH CROSS, SRIRAMA KRUPA, NANJANAGUDU TOWN, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 391.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. M NAGARAJAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶17

TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DIVISION, OPP. KALA MANDIR, MYSURU - 570 005.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA)

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:46695-DB WP No. 17010 of 2024

¶22

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024 IN A.NO.596/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND TO ALLOW THE A.NO.596/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE KSAT AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶27

Petitioner, a civil servant is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for laying a challenge to the Suspension Order dated 24.01.2024, his Application No.596/2024 having been negatived by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 14.06.2024.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:46695-DB WP No. 17010 of 2024

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner

¶30

Prof.M.Nagarajan vehemently argues that in terms of decision of the Apex Court in AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶31

vs. UNION OF INDIA , AIR 2015 SC 2389, the Suspension Order cannot continue beyond the period of six months without issuing the Charge Memo and therefore, the impugned order of Tribunal is liable to be voided. Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents vehemently opposes the petition contending that it is always the prerogative of employer to keep his employee under suspension; ordinarily, the orders of suspension are not deeply examined by the writ court, once that exercise is done by the Tribunal; even otherwise, suspension would not cause any prejudice to the employee since he will be paid subsistence allowance.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under inasmuch as admittedly till date, no Show Cause Notice

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:46695-DB WP No. 17010 of 2024

¶34

has been issued to the petitioner in terms of Rule 11 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The Apex Court in AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY supra, has observed that ordinarily the suspension of employee cannot be for a period beyond three months as provided in Central Rules subject to all

¶35

just exceptions into which argued case of the official respondents does not fit. 1957 Rules provide for a period of six months and that period has already expired, no enquiry having formally been instituted as yet. Therefore, the suspension can no longer be continued.

¶36

At this stage, learned AGA appearing for the

¶37

respondents in all appreciable fairness submits that continuing the employee in the same place would have its own implications and therefore, if at all suspension is to be revoked/quashed, the government be permitted to post the petitioner elsewhere. This we agree with.

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46695-DB WP No. 17010 of 2024

¶39

In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed;

¶40

the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside; as also the order of the suspension dated 24.01.2024 is voided by allowing petitioner’s Application No.596/2024; petitioner shall be given posting elsewhere, within a period of two weeks. The jurisdictional respondents are directed to commence and accomplish the enquiry within an outer limit of three months.

¶41

Costs made easy.

¶42

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶43

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶44

CBC

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Sri Srinath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Srinath 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Saroja Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Basavaraj Menashinakai, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ajay S Pathange Vs Sri B R Sathyanarayana Rao

Sachinkumar S Yalawar Vs the State of Karnataka