Dismissed

Sri K L Manjunath v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2024WP/3129/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a suspension order passed against a Revenue Inspector for failing to reply to a show-cause notice regarding tax revision. The Court held that post-suspension submissions offered an explanation and directed the authority to review the representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner is directed to allow the respondent authority to examine the post-suspension representation within four weeks.

Sri K L Manjunath Vs the Chief Commissioner — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:6355 WP No. 3129 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3129 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. K.L. MANJUNATH, S/O G. LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.22, YELLE KODIGEHALLI, SPANDANA NAGARA, NANJUNDESHWARA BADAVANE, BANGALORE - 91.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS V, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, N.R. SQUARE, BBMP, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

THE ZONAL COMMISSIONER, RAJARAJESHWARI ZONE, IDEAL HOMES, 18TH CROSS, RAJARAJESHWARI ZONE, BANGALORE - 560 098.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 10.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:6355 WP No. 3129 of 2024

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The captioned petition is filed assailing the suspension order dated 10.01.2024 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B.

¶24

Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶25

The petitioner is serving as a Revenue Inspector in the respondent-corporation. Respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice seeking an explanation as to why he has not revised the tax to be collected from the owners of the residential house. Though this notice was served on the petitioner on 02.01.2024, the petitioner failed to offer an satisfactory explanation. The petitioner is placed under suspension vide order dated 10.01.2024.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the suspension order has raised two grounds. The first limb of argument is that respondent No.2 has no power to place the petitioner under suspension. The second limb of

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:6355 WP No. 3129 of 2024

¶28

argument is that the impugned suspension order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would point out that the suspension order was passed as petitioner consciously failed to submit his reply justifying his action for not revising the tax. To counter the contention that respondent No.2 lacks authority, learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record order dated 15.11.2023 to substantiate that respondent No.2 under delegation of power is authorized to take action against the officials.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records.

¶31

It is a trite law that Court should not intervene by exercising judicial review in suspension matter. Respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice and the same was served on the petitioner on 02.01.2024. Since petitioner failed to offer an explanation, the suspension order is issued on 10.01.2024. Post suspension, the

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:6355 WP No. 3129 of 2024

¶33

petitioner has made a representation seeking revocation of suspension order and he has placed on record materials indicating that there is compliance from his side. On examining the materials on record, I am of the view that the petitioner's contention that he was not heard before passing suspension order cannot be exceeded to. The authority of respondent No.2 in placing the petitioner under suspension is supported by an order dated 15.11.2023. The power is delegated to respondent No.2 and therefore, suspension order does not suffer from any illegalities.

¶34

Be that as it may. If petitioner has offered an explanation post suspension and has furnished documents, it is open for respondent No.2 to examine the representation submitted and take appropriate action in accordance with law within an outer limit of four weeks.

¶35

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

hdk

Sri K L Manjunath v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K L Manjunath v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rani. C. S. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ashoka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. R K Shashidhar Vs the State of Karnataka

M Chandrappa Vs the Commissioner

Sri Jaldesh B N Vs the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Rajanna Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike