Disposed

Sri Krishnamurthy R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2024WP/9494/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A suspended government officer challenged a KSAT order that had merely issued notice on his interim stay application, seeking interim relief from the High Court. The Division Bench held the petition premature since the Tribunal was still considering the matter, and disposed of it directing the Tribunal to decide the application within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to KSAT to dispose of A.No.1462/2024 within 10 days from the next date of hearing i.e., 15.04.2024.

Sri Krishnamurthy R Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:13149-DB WP No. 9494 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 9494 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY.R, S/O RAJANNA .R, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS DISTRICT OFFICER, MINORITY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, MYSURU DISTRICT, R/AT NO.42, VARSOVA LAYOUT, C.V RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 093.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINORITY WELFARE, HAJ AND WAKF DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

THE DIRECTOR, MINORITY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 052.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:13149-DB WP No. 9494 of 2024

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.03.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KSAT AT BENGALURU IN A.No-1462/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE- AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, K.SOMASHEKAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the KSAT in A.No.1462/2024 dated 21.03.2024, wherein the Tribunal issued notice to the respondents on the interim prayer sought by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court for grant of interim order prayed by him in the application before the Tribunal.

¶26

We have heard the learned counsel Sri Vijaya Kumar for the petitioner so also the learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Vikas Rojipura for respondent Nos.1 and 2 so also perused the documents placed before us.

¶27

On careful perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 21.03.2024, the same depicts that, the Tribunal while passing the order clearly observed that this is not a case for grant of ex - parte stay of dispensing the notice under

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13149-DB WP No. 9494 of 2024

¶29

Section 24 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and prior notice to the respondents is necessary. Accordingly, directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to accept the notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and posted the matter on 27.03.2024 and thereafter on 15.04.2024, for consideration of the interim prayer.

¶30

In this case, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order bearing No.MWD.23.MDS.2023 dated 15.03.2024, issued by the first respondent by placing the petitioner under suspension for the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the petitioner has not committed any such misconduct and his suspension is contrary to Rule 10(3) of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 and the Tribunal is erred by not granting the interim order. However, still the matter is under consideration at the hands of the Tribunal. We are of the considered view that, the petitioner has approached this Court prematurely before passing any order by the Tribunal and we are unable to accept the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:13149-DB WP No. 9494 of 2024

¶32

Therefore, it is made it clear and also made an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits of this matter, at this stage, this writ petition does not survive for consideration.

¶33

Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose the application within

¶34

10 days from the next date of hearing i.e., on 15.04.2024.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Sri Krishnamurthy R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishnamurthy R 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

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Viswanath M N

The Union of India Vs Shrei Shibobrata Nandy

Sri K R Hemanthkumar Vs the Karnataka Examinations Authority

Sri Somanath Mallikarjunaiah Hiremath, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmi Vs Mr. S.R. Umashankar

Sri Suryakantha Vs Sri. Tushar Girinath