Sri.Hanumanth.K.Bhajantri, Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI.HANUMANTH.K.BHAJANTRI, S/O KALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, WORKING AS POLICE INSPECTOR, (UNDER ORDERS OF SUSPENSION), ULSOOR GATE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU, R/AT NO.103, VRUSHABHAVATHI BUILDING, MSK LINE CAR HEAD QUARTERS, MYSURU ROAD, NEAR VINAYAKA THEATRE, BENGALURU -560 001

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. DEEPAK BAJENTRI, ADVOCATE FOR

¶13

SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:40397-DB WP No. 30683 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶19

HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001

¶20

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA STATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001

¶21

THE POLICE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU-560 001

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CENTRAL DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU 560 001

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.09.2025 PASSED BY THE KSAT IN A.No4298/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:40397-DB WP No. 30683 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶33

The short question presented for consideration is: whether this Court must intervene and stay the operation of the third respondent's order dated 22.09.2025 keeping the petitioner, who is working as the Police Inspector, Ulsoor Gate Police Station under suspension when the petitioner’s application with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short’ the Tribunal’] in Application No. 4298/2025 is pending consideration . The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has opined that the petitioner's request for the interim order must be considered after notifying the respondents, and the Tribunal has listed the petition on 21.10.2025.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40397-DB WP No. 30683 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Mr. Deepak Bajentri, the learned counsel

¶37

for the petitioner, on the facts leading to the third respondent's decision to keep the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 22.09.2025, submits that:

¶38

[a] the Station House Register [ in Form No.

¶39

66 ] bears testimony to the petitioner's case that the concerned police constable informed the petitioner that he had apprehended Mr. Anwar Hussain because he was abusive with no reason and that with this person willing to state that he would not so behave in the future, a petty case was directed to be registered, and

¶40

[b] notwithstanding these circumstances, merely because a purported complaint is lodged by Mr. Anwar Hussain's friend on 05.09.2025 and the petitioner has

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40397-DB WP No. 30683 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

taken no action until information was filed with the senior officers, the

¶44

petitioner is kept under suspension.

¶45

Mr. Deepak Bajentri is categorical that the

¶46

petitioner received no complaint from Mr. Anwar

¶47

Hussain's friend, and that once he is issued with a notice by the third respondent on why action was not taken on the complaint purportedly filed, the petitioner has caused notice to the concerned constables. On the merits otherwise, Mr. Deepak Bajentri submits that the third respondent's decision to keep the petitioner under suspension is based only on suspicion and not prima facie case as required under the relevant Manual. Mr. Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, submits that the Tribunal is yet to decide on the petitioner's grievance with the decision to keep him under suspension and the petitioner's grievance,

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:40397-DB WP No. 30683 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

amongst others, must turn on his case that Mr. Anwar Hussain's friend had not even filed a complaint with him.

¶52

This Court is of the view that all circumstances, including whether there was any complaint lodged on 05.09.2025 with the petitioner about the conduct of his subordinates and the requirement in law before a police officer is kept under suspension, must be examined as must be the merits of the allegation of illegal seizing of Rs.10,00,000/- on a prima facie scale insofar as the petitioner. This must at the first instance be considered by the Tribunal, and the Tribunal must consider these expeditiously lest it be that a police officer is kept under suspension under circumstances that may not be justified. Therefore, the petition stands disposed of calling upon the Tribunal to decide on the next date of hearing [or at the earliest] the petitioner's request for the interim order, or the

¶53