A surveyor suspended over alleged fabrication of land records challenged the Tribunal's refusal to set aside her suspension. The High Court held suspension under Rule 10(3) is discretionary, delay not decisive, and declined interference under limited Article 227 jurisdiction while directing expeditious enquiry.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:41430-DB WP No. 24335 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 24335 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT. T M RUKSANA, D/O SHEK ABDUL MUNAF, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SURVEYOR, DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS, O/O ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, SHIKARIPURA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA-577 427. R/AT C/O VIJAYKUMAR, BEHIND TALUK OFFICE BUILDING, SHARANYA COMPUTER UPWARD, SHIKARIPURA, SHIVAMOGGA-577 427.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.R KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN APPLICATION No. 2001/2024
ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU AND ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.2001 OF 2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWED THE APPLICATION NO.2001/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)
A delinquent civil servant is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing State Service Tribunal’s judgement dated 12.07.2024 whereby her Application No.2001/2024 laying a challenge to her suspension order dated 30.05.2024 has been negatived.
to Shikaripura w.e.f. 14.07.2020 and therefore, there is no
need for suspension at all, she being hundreds of miles away from the place of record concerning the incident; earlier enquiry that was intended came to be dropped after seeing her explanation; there being no change of circumstances, order of suspension is liable to be voided; all this having not been duly adverted to by the Tribunal, the impugned judgement suffers from infirmities warranting indulgence of this Court. Learned AGA representing the Respondents resists the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned judgement and the reasons on which it has been constructed.
3.1) It is the specific case of Respondents that a huge gomal land admeasuring 7A-02G has been wrongly shown to be of a private party by manipulation of records & fabrication of documents; the Petitioner herein who was then working as the Surveyor, had a pivotal role to play in
the accomplishment of phodi & durasth work; she failed to adhere to the Departmental Circular dated 25.01.2010 and as a consequence, the public property would have been lost. It is in this backdrop of facts the Government has constituted a Special Committee vide order dated 12.04.2024 which having conducted Preliminary Enquiry, has submitted a Report dated 23.04.2024 inter alia to the effect that Petitioner in collusion with others, had fabricated the records and therefore, she has been placed under suspension vide order dated 30.05.2024 in contemplation of a disciplinary enquiry, for a serious
charge.
3.2) Justice Rama Jois1 writes:
“ Whenever a departmental enquiry is contemplated or pending against a civil servant or where a case against a civil servant in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial, the rules authorize the disciplinary authority to place the concerned civil servant under the suspension. The object of placing a civil servant under suspension is to keep him away from a position where he can interfere with the conduct of the enquiry or tamper with documentary or oral evidence in any manner or where, having regard to the nature of the
1 Services Under the State N.M.Tripathi Publications (1987) at Page No.483
charges against him, it is felt that it would be unsafe to continue to vest in him the powers of his post. It is for the disciplinary or the competent authority to consider all the facts and circumstances of the case and in its discretion, to place a civil servant under suspension”.
Power to suspend has been specifically conferred under Rule 10(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957. It hardly needs to be stated that it is a wide power and the Executive will decide as to whether one needs to be suspended in the given circumstances; ordinarily, Courts do not grant interference subject to all just exceptions into which argued case of the Petitioner does not fit.
3.3) True it is that delay or conduct of the delinquent are relevant while taking the decision as to his suspension; however, they are not decisive, vide UNION OF INDIA vs. UDAY NARAIN2 . The alleged incident happened way back in the year 2010 is true. Petitioner had offered explanation at that point of time is also true. However, regard being had to hugeness of the public property that
2 (1998) 5 SCC 535
would have been otherwise lost, a Committee was constituted on 12.04.2024 which having prima facie investigated in the matter submitted the Report on 23.04.2024 implicating the Petitioner and others. It is not that absolutely without any basis the suspension order has been issued. This aspect of the matter having been duly examined by the Tribunal, Petitioner has been rightly denied relief.
3.4) This Petition is essentially under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which vests limited supervisory jurisdiction in this Court, the other provision namely Article 226 having been ornamentally employed. The jurisdiction and competence of the Service Tribunal is under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 vide L CHANDRA KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA3 . The orders of statutory authorities like the Tribunal passed in their admitted jurisdiction cannot be examined by the High Court as a Court of Appeal, whilst exercising such supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 vide NARESH
3 AIR 1997 SC 1125
SHRIDHAR MIRAJKAR vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA4 .
It is not that the Petitioner has been substantially prejudiced by virtue of suspension inasmuch as, she will be entitled to the payment of Subsistence Allowance at the prescribed rates. Justice also would be met if the contemplated enquiry is directed to be accomplished expeditiously, which accordingly we direct.
In the above circumstances this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.
Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE
Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE
Bsv/Nr List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
4 AIR 1967 SC 1
1 issue framed by the court
Was the petitioner's suspension order, challenged before the Tribunal and negatived, liable to be interfered with under Article 227?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
UNION OF INDIA vs. UDAY NARAINRelied on¶33
(1998) 5 SCC 535 · Who else cites this
L CHANDRA KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIAReferred¶34
AIR 1997 SC 1125 · Who else cites this
NARESH SHRIDHAR MIRAJKAR vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRARelied on¶34
AIR 1967 SC 1 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
SMT. T M RUKSANA
THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, SHIKARIPURA TALUK
KRISHNA S DIXIT
C M JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
