Dismissed¶¶56

Mayanna v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2025WP/13272/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), WP No.13272 of 2023 (S-RES), decided 09-10-2025 by Justice Ashok S.Kinagi: writ challenging BBMP suspension order dated 12.06.2023 dismissed as infructuous after suspension was revoked on 29.02.2024 (Annexure-R3). Search terms: suspension revocation; infructuous writ petition; reinstatement mandamus; Evaluator post; DPC promotion order 11.10.2021; Enquiry Officer report 28.04.2023; Anti-Corruption Bureau letter 30.04.2022; CCA Rules 1957; Articles 226 and 227; BBMP Deputy Commissioner (Administration); WP No.19527/2022.

What did the court decide?

Since the respondents revoked the order of suspension vide order dated 29.02.2024 (Annexure-R3) during the pendency of the writ petition, nothing survives for consideration in the writ petition. ¶¶56

Mayanna Vs the Chief Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39994 WP No. 13272 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 13272 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MAYANNA

¶11

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

S/O LATE NARAYANA @ CHURIKARA MAYANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC-EVALUATOR W/A OFFICE OF THE ASST.REVENUE OFFICER K R PURAM SUB DIVISION BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU-560036 …PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR G M., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER

¶16

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560002.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39994 WP No. 13272 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ADMINISTRATION BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560002.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANI M A., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR RECORDS, QUASH THE IMPUGNED SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 12/06/2023 BEARING NO. B12(1G)PR/175/2022-23 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER WITH THE EVALUATOR POST AS PER THE PROMOTION ORDER DTD 11/10/2021 ISSUED BY THE DPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-A WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL SERVICE BENEFITS.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39994 WP No. 13272 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Petitioner filed this petition challenging the order of suspension dated 12.06.2023, passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-N and also sought for a mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner with the Evaluator post as per the promotion order dated 11.10.2021, issued by the DPC vide Annexure-A.

¶29

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

¶30

2.1. The petitioner was appointed as an SDA in the

¶31

respondents-Corporation on 23.01.2002. In the light of the letter dated 30.04.2022 issued by the Police Superintendent, Anti-Corruption Bureau, the suspension order was issued against the petitioner and deputed in the Office of the Joint Director (Animal Husbandry), BBMP, Bengaluru. The order of suspension was not communicated to the petitioner as per the letter dated 30.04.2022. The petitioner filed a writ petition in WP

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:39994 WP No. 13272 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

No.19527/2022 challenging the withdrawal of order of promotion of the petitioner. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition observing that, the pending enquiry should be expedited and to be completed not later than three months from the date of receipt of a

¶36

copy of the order. The petitioner submitted a representation and sought to depute him and show his posting in order to discharge his duties. The respondents failed to do so. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 28.04.2023 stating that, there was no such establishment of case to prove the charges alleged against the petitioner by the Corporation. Respondents-Corporation ought to have closed the disciplinary proceedings and reinstated the petitioner with all consequential benefits. But on the contrary, the respondent has passed an order of suspension dated 12.06.2023.

¶37

The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of suspension, filed this petition.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:39994 WP No. 13272 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The respondents filed a statement of objections

¶42

and additional statement of objections. In the additional statement of objections filed by the respondents, the respondents have stated that the order of suspension was revoked vide order dated 29.02.2024 as per Annexure-R3 and directed the petitioner to report to the duty. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶43

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, while passing a suspension order, respondent No.2 intentionally and deliberately not referred the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and there is a suppression of material facts. He also submits that, the respondent, before passing the suspension order, has failed to follow the CCA Rules, 1957. Hence, he submits that, the order of suspension is bad in law and liable to be set aside. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:39994 WP No. 13272 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents

¶49

submits that, the order of suspension was revoked vide order dated 29.02.2024 as per Annexure-R3 and he submits that, the petitioner was directed to report to the duty. He submits that, in view of the order passed by the respondents vide order dated 29.02.2024 as per Annexure-R3, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition and accordingly, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶50

Perused the records and considered the

¶51

submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶52

There is no dispute that the respondents passed an order of suspension of the petitioner from service i.e., the impugned order. The respondents have filed additional statement of objections contending that, the order of suspension was revoked as per Annexure-R3 vide order dated 29.02.2024, and directed the petitioner to report to the duty. Respondents have produced the order of revocation of order of suspension vide Annexure-R3. The

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:39994 WP No. 13272 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

said order was passed during the pendency of this writ petition. In view of the order passed by the respondents vide Annexure-R3, the order of suspension was revoked. In view of the same, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition.

¶57

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶58

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, if the petitioner reports to the duty, the respondents will permit the petitioner to discharge his duties. His submission is placed on record.

¶59

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶60

PA CT:KHV

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Mayanna v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayanna v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kapinipathi Vs State of Karnataka

Dr. G M Kalleshwarappa @ G M K Eshwar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C K Umesh Vs Smt Channamma

Sri. Venkata Ramaiah Vs Padma

Shri Dinesh Vs the Director

Smt. Rashmi G.M Vs the Registrar