Dismissed

K N Swamy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2024WP/23869/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash a suspension order against the petitioner, Assistant Executive Engineer. The court held that judicial review of suspension is limited to instances of malafides, arbitrariness, or punitiveness. The petition was dismissed, with liberty to file a representation for revocation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner is given liberty to submit a fresh representation seeking revocation of the suspension order.

K N Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:5209 WP No. 23869 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.23869 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K.N.SWAMY S/O LATE T .K.KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER D.U.D.C CHITHRADURGA CHITHRADURGA TOWN AND DISTRICT R/AT NO.497, 5^TH MAIN 5^TH CROSS, DUMB AND DEAF SCHOOL R M YARD, D C M LAYOUT AVARAGERE DAVANAGERE – 577 003

¶9

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. SHRAVAN MADHAV K P, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION OFF AT: 9^TH AND 10^TH FLOOR VISHVESHWARIAH TOWER AMBEDKAR ROAD SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:5209 WP No. 23869 of 2023

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT - 577501

¶17

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560001

¶18

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT – 577501

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT.PRATHIBHA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED GOVERNMENT ORDER, BEARING G.O.NO.NA. A.E/09/BMS/2023, DTD 19.10.2023, ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (AT ANNEXURE-J) AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The captioned writ petition is filed assailing

¶25

impugned suspension order dated 19.10.2023 issued by respondent No.3 – Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department as per Annexure-J.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:5209 WP No. 23869 of 2023

¶28

Petitioner’s grievance before this Court is that

¶29

respondent No.3, based on the report prepared by the Project Director, has placed petitioner under suspension on the ground that the report indicates that the work is not completed and some fabricated bills are raised and the same have been approved by the Officials in charge including petitioner herein, who was Assistant Executive Engineer, D.U.D.C, Chithradurga at the relevant point of time.

¶30

The petitioner has challenged suspension order

¶31

on the ground that show-cause notice dated 07.08.2023 and consequent suspension order is based on false and fabricated report, which is contrary to the true facts and documents. The second limb of arguments canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that respondent No.3 contrary to report submitted by the Project Director has arbitrarily initiated action against petitioner though report indicates that in all nine persons,

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:5209 WP No. 23869 of 2023

¶34

who were in charge of the projects, are found to be guilty of dereliction of duty.

¶35

Pending consideration of the captioned writ petition, petitioner, while assailing impugned suspension order, has placed reliance on the internal enquiry report prepared by the Department of Municipal Administration. Referring to the Report, he would point out that report indicates that in all nine concerned Officials are also responsible for the loss caused to the department. The petitioner also contends that after completion of project, the Executing Engineer has conducted spot inspection and no action is proposed against the Executive Engineer. Reliance is placed on the internal enquiry report indicating that the Executive Engineer along with petitioner herein have conducted spot inspection on 17.08.2021. Therefore, petitioner contends that respondent No.3 could not have placed petitioner under suspension relying solely on the report dated 09.06.2023 submitted by the Project Director, who admittedly is a non-technical person and

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:5209 WP No. 23869 of 2023

¶38

does not possess expertise to place a report relating to completion of project and therefore, petitioner has contended that report dated 09.06.2023 is not reliable on the ground that the Project Director lacks technical knowledge.

¶39

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶40

petitioner and learned AGA. Perused the records.

¶41

Though petitioner has placed reliance on the

¶42

internal enquiry report submitted by the Director of Municipal Administration, the said report does not come to the aid of the petitioner in entirety. The internal enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Authority gives an indication that petitioner along with other Officials, who

¶43

are connected to the project, are found to be guilty of dereliction of duty and they are responsible for financial loss. The petitioner’s grievance is that no action is taken against the Executive Engineer and other eight employees whose names are indicated in the internal Enquiry Report.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:5209 WP No. 23869 of 2023

¶46

I am of the view that this cannot be a ground to interfere with the suspension order issued by respondent No.3.

¶47

However, I am of the view that petitioner is at liberty to submit representation and seek revocation of the suspension order by placing reliance on the enquiry report submitted by the Director of Municipal Administration. On examining materials on record, I am not inclined to grant any indulgence at this stage. Judicial review in suspension matter is very limited and the Hon’ble Apex

¶48

Court and this Court in catena of judgments have consistently held that suspension order should not be reviewed by the Courts unless the suspension order is tainted with malafides, arbitrary or punitive in nature. The judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has no application to the present case on hand.

¶49

For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following;

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:5209 WP No. 23869 of 2023

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) The writ petition is dismissed.

¶53

(ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

NBM

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

K N Swamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K N Swamy 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

Sri. Chandrappa. K. N. Vs the Principal Secretary

Ashok Antony D Souza Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Nataraja M N Vs the Principal Secretary

Smt Sindhuja L D Vs Visvesvaraya Technological University (Vtu)

Sri Suresh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mohan Kumara Vs the Executive Director