A Chief Officer transferred to Pattana Panchayath Molakalmuru was suspended after deaths from water contamination, pending departmental proceedings. Challenging the suspension as lacking application of mind, his writ petition was rejected, the court finding the order referred to the Deputy Commissioner's inspection report and cause shown.
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:26531 WP No. 9915 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9915 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI L V MANJUNATH S/O LATE L V VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS CHIEF OFFICER PATTANA PANCHAYATH MOLAKALMURU, RAMDURGA ROAD NEXT TO TALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL CHITRADURGA HOSPITAL 577535.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BALARAJ A C.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD Date: 2024.08.03 11:20:15 +0530
NC: 2024:KHC:26531 WP No. 9915 of 2024
BENGALURU 560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRINCE ISAC., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; R4 SERVED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. 1353988/DMA/ENQ1/BNG2/13/2024, DATED 13.3.24 PASSED BY THE R2 AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-H.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, who was working with the
Town Municipal Council, Pavagada, is transferred as the Chief Officer, Pattana Panchayath, Molakalmuru, Chitradurga District. The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent's order dated 13.03.2024 [ Annexure-H ], and the second respondent by this
order has kept the petitioner under suspension as contemplated under Rule 10(1)(d) of the Karnataka Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1957 [for short, 'the CCA Rules '] subject to initiation of departmental proceedings.
NC: 2024:KHC:26531 WP No. 9915 of 2024
Notice on 23.02.2024, and it is based on this Show Cause Notice and the petitioner's response that the second respondent has passed the impugned order keeping the petitioner under suspension subject to initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
the petitioner, submits that this Court must interfere with the impugned order because the petitioner's response to specific allegations are not considered before keeping the petitioner under suspension; that the petitioner has reported to duty only on 11.10.2023 and immediately thereafter [on 04.11.2023] he has issued notice to the Junior Engineer with the Pattana Panchayath to take all necessary emergency measures for proper distribution of water and informed the Junior Engineer that if there is any lapse he would be answerable.
NC: 2024:KHC:26531 WP No. 9915 of 2024
second respondent, in the light of the fact that the petitioner has caused notice even before the mishap, should have considered the cause shown in the response dated 23.02.2024 and the failure to even refer to the cause shown indicates complete lack of application of mind. The learned counsel also proposes to canvass multiple grounds to justify why the petitioner cannot be held accountable for the water contamination, damage to the filter body, procurement of PAC Powder and Chlorine solution without tender process and delay in attending to the files relating to E-Khata.
inspection and subsequent proposal by the Deputy Commissioner on 22.02.2024. The second
respondent does indeed refer to some of the aspects highlighted by the Deputy Commissioner's Report and recorded by this Court in the course of this order. This Court, in the circumstances of the case, cannot opine that the impugned order is without application of mind. The petitioner will have his rights under the CCA Rules if there is delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings. Further, given the circumstances of the case and the manner in which the jurisdiction is exercised by the second respondent, this Court is not persuaded to opine that there is any reason for interference. Hence, the petition stands rejected.
Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
NV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suspension order failed to consider the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice and lacked application of mind.
Whether the court should interfere with a suspension under Rule 10(1)(d) of the CCA Rules pending departmental proceedings.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri L V Manjunath
The State of Karnataka
The Director of Municipal Administration
The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District
The Project Director, District Urban Development Wing, Chitradurga District
B M Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
