Disposed

Sri K Prashanth v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2024WP/9134/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, a suspended engineer, challenged a Tribunal order due to lack of enquiry charges within six months. This Court held that if the enquiry was not commenced within six months of suspension, the petitioner is entitled to Rule 10(5)(b) benefits and directed the authorities to consider posting requests upon the petitioner's report within one week.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to report; request for posting orders to be considered and orders passed within one week.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:32784-DB WP No. 9134 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA WRIT PETITION NO. 9134 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K. PRASHANTH, S/O S. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WAS WORKING AS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, UPPER TUNGA PROJECT, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMITHA, SHIVAMOGGA 577 201 (NOW UNDER AN ORDER SUSPENSION)

¶9

Digitally signed by NANDINI D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT NO.831/1, 5^TH CROSS, BHOVI COLONY, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.N. PHANEENDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. P.B. RAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA.)

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32784-DB WP No. 9134 of 2024

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01/02/2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.5042/2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION NO.5042/2023 AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B) ETC.

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶19

This Writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 01^st February, 2024 passed in Application No.5042 of 2023 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"), as per Annexure-A.

¶20

Heard Sri K.N. Phaneendra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32784-DB WP No. 9134 of 2024

¶22

It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that

¶23

the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 21^st November, 2023 as per Annexure-A10. It is further submitted that in spite of passage of more than six months, no Memo of Charges have been issued to the petitioner and the order of suspension has also not been extended in the manner known to law. It is therefore contended that since Departmental Enquiry has not commenced within six months from the date of suspension and since no competent order has been passed continuing

¶24

the suspension beyond six months within a period of six months, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Rule 10(5)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short hereinafter referred to as the "CCA Rules') and is liable to be reinstated in service.

¶25

Learned Government Advocate, submits that on

¶26

the deemed revocation of suspension order also, the petitioner has to report for duty and seek for posting,

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32784-DB WP No. 9134 of 2024

¶28

failing which, he will be deemed to be on unauthorised absence.

¶29

The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has made a representation dated 17^th April, 2024 to the respondent seeking posting orders, but no order has been passed.

¶30

Having considered the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that, if, as a matter of fact, the Departmental Enquiry has

¶31

not been commenced within six months from 21^st November, 2023, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Rule 10(5)(b) of Rules. In the above circumstances, there will a direction that in case the petitioner reports before the respondent and seeks posting orders, the request shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon in accordance with law. Needful shall be done within a period of one week from the date on which the petitioner reports and make a request, as observed above.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:32784-DB WP No. 9134 of 2024

¶34

With the said observation, the writ petition shall

¶35

stand disposed of.

¶36

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶37

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶38

LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Sri K Prashanth v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Prashanth 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

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs State of Karnataka

The Chief Executive Officer Vs the State of Karnataka

Major Gandikote Ramanna Nagabhushana Vs M/S Erin Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Dr Asha Bharath Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Saroja Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dhananjaya D S Vs the State of Karnataka