Sri. Shiva Kumar R C Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. SHIVA KUMAR R C S/O LATE CHANNAVEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, GRADE-I, HAROHALLI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 112 (UNDER SUSPENSION) RESIDING AT RAMPURA VILLAGE, THUGANI POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. R SUBRAMANYA, ADV. FOR SMT. SHILPA S GOGI, ADV.)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA- 562 112.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA R1 & R2)

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30174-DB WP No. 18126 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 17/06/2025 IN A.NO.1017/2025, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXUREE AND A.NO.1017/2025 BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶27

The petitioner, working as Tahsildar is before this

¶28

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 17.06.2025 in Application No.1017/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”) rejecting his application, whereby the petitioner had questioned the order of suspension dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure-A7).

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner joined services as Tahsildar in pursuance of the order of

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30174-DB WP No. 18126 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

appointment dated 31.07.2024. The petitioner was posted

¶33

to work as Tahsildar to Harohalli Taluk, Ramanagar District. While working as such, under order dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure-A7), the petitioner was kept under suspension under Rule 10(1)(d) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules 1957 (for short “CCA Rules”). Questioning the said order of suspension, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated application. The Tribunal, under the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 rejected petitioner’s application, holding that the actions of the petitioner is a matter for enquiry and it is for the Enquiry Officer to find out the truth based on oral and documentary evidence. Questioning the order of the Tribunal as well as the order of suspension, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶34

Heard learned counsel Sri.R.Subramanya for

¶35

Smt.Shilpa S Gogi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:30174-DB WP No. 18126 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

along with learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Subramanya would submit that the allegations on which the petitioner is kept under suspension are baseless and are far from truth. Learned counsel would submit that the survey and spot inspection were ordered to be conducted on the instructions of the second respondent/Deputy Commissioner. Further, learned counsel refers to the meeting of the Deputy Commissioner dated 11.09.2024 wherein the Deputy Commissioner instructed all the Tahsildars of the District to take certain steps to consider Form No.53 for regularization of unauthorized occupation. Learned counsel would submit that there is no sufficient material to keep the petitioner under suspension as required under Rule 10(3) of CCA Rules. Further, learned counsel would submit that the second respondent/Deputy Commissioner submitted report on 21.03.2025 and on the

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30174-DB WP No. 18126 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

same day, the petitioner was kept under suspension by

¶44

the State Government and even before the order of suspension was handed over to the second respondent, the second respondent relieved the petitioner. Thus, he submits that the second respondent was haste in keeping the petitioner under suspension and learned counsel would submit that the second respondent with malafide intention recommended suspension of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not pressurized the Officers to work contrary to the existing Government Orders and Circulars and thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition.

¶45

Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General

¶46

Sri.Reuben Jacob would submit that the petitioner is a probationary Tahsildar and he pressurized the Officers to work contrary to the Government Orders and Circulars. Further, learned AAG would submit that the petitionerTahsildar contrary to the Circulars and Government Orders has directed spot inspection. However, learned AAG would

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30174-DB WP No. 18126 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

submit that the charge memo in respect of the alleged

¶50

charges is issued on 16.07.2025 and the respondentauthorities would commence the enquiry against the petitioner. Therefore, learned AAG would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. Learned AGA has placed on record the show-cause notice dated 16.07.2025 wherein the charge memo issued to the petitioner is enclosed along with memo dated 04.08.2025.

¶51

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Rule 10 of CCA Rules empowers the Appointing Authority or Disciplinary Authority to keep the concerned Government servant under suspension, subject to fulfillment of sub-clause (3) of Rule 10 of CCA Rules. SubClause (3) of Rule 10 of CCA Rules requires that the authority competent to place a Government servant under suspension shall examine the relevant material relating to the case and consider whether there is prima facie

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:30174-DB WP No. 18126 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

evidence to support the charges made against the Government servant and if it is satisfied on such examination that prima facie evidence exists, it may place the Government servant concerned under suspension. In the instant case, materials placed on record would satisfy Rule 10(3) of CCA Rules. Moreover, suspension is not a punishment and in the enquiry, the petitioner could establish his innocence.

¶55

7. Admittedly, the petitioner is issued with show-cause

¶56

notice enclosing the charge memo dated 16.07.2025. Thus, enquiry is being instituted by issuance of charge memo. The charge memo would be issued only after collecting necessary materials. The purpose of keeping a Government servant under suspension is to see that a Government servant shall not tamper with the evidence or material. In the instant case, when the charge memo is issued, evidence was already collected. As such, once the charge memo is issued, continuing the Government servant under suspension would come to an end. Instead

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:30174-DB WP No. 18126 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

of keeping the Government servant under suspension and

¶60

paying subsistence allowance unnecessarily, the Government could give posting out of mischief zone and utilize the services of such suspended Government servant. In the instant petition also, since the charge memo is already issued, the first respondent is directed to revoke the order of suspension of the petitioner and give posting to the petitioner out of mischief zone.

¶61

With the above direction writ petition stands disposed of.

¶62

Time for compliance, four weeks from today.

¶63

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶64

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶65

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Sri. Shiva Kumar R C v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shiva Kumar R C v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajakanteerava S B Vs the Secretary

The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt Premakumari

Sri Raghavendra Owdeyar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ravikumar. S Vs the State of Karnataka

R Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka