Sri K M Narendra Kumar Vs the Commissioner

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a)SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23/09/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KSAT IN APPLICATION NO.3291/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; b)ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE SUSPENSION ORDER BEARING NO.SSLR/ADM-15011/48/2025 DATED 27/06/2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A9; c)ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:41797-DB WP No. 30826 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RESTORE THE PETITIONER TO HIS ORIGINAL POSITION WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶37

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

¶38

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶39

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

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

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

¶42

The petitioner, a Survey Supervisor who is attached to the Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer-1 [ SLAO-1 ], Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board [ KIADB ], has called in question the first respondent’s order dated 27.06.2025 in his Application No. 3291 of 2025 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short, ' the Tribunal ']. The Tribunal by the impugned Order dated 23.09.2025 has refused to intervene.

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41797-DB WP No. 30826 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The Tribunal has opined that [a] there is no reason for interference with the first respondent's order dated 27.06.2025 because whether an employee should or should not continue in office during the period of enquiry is a matter to be assessed by the concerned disciplinary authority and suspension is advised to keep the delinquent out of mischief zone [b] the suspension is an interim measure to aid the disciplinary proceedings ensuring that the delinquent may not gain custody and control of documents or take advantage of the position.

¶46

The Tribunal, as regards the petitioner's

¶47

case that his suspension is because of a First Information Report [FIR] registered by the Lokayukta Police which is stayed by this Court in WP No. 19477 of 2025, has observed that this Court may have stayed the operation of the FIR, but that stay cannot lead to an inference that the FIR is false and the

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41797-DB WP No. 30826 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

merits of the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension must be examined otherwise.

¶51

Sri Vikram Huilgol, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits thus.

¶52

[i] A complaint is lodged on 21.04.2025 alleging that the petitioner had demanded certain money for concluding the survey of the land in Survey No. 111/12 of Bilekahalli village, Begur Hobli, and acting upon such complaint, the Lokayukta has laid a trap. However, the petitioner has called in question such FIR in W.P. No. 19477/2025, and that this Court has stayed further proceedings pursuant to such FIR.

¶53

[ii] Because the first respondent's decision to keep the petitioner under suspension

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41797-DB WP No. 30826 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

is based on the communication of the FIR, the basis for the decision is nullified and therefore there is no justification for continuing the petitioner under

¶57

suspension.

¶58

[c] It is beyond dispute that the scope of concluding a survey for demarcating the boundaries of the land would be outside the jurisdiction of the KIADB and even if at all some role play could be assigned to the KIADB, because the petitioner is associated with the office of SLAO-1, KIADB, his jurisdiction would only extend over those KIADB lands in Ramanagara and Kolar districts, as the KIADB lands in Bangalore Urban District would come within the jurisdiction of SLAO-1.

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41797-DB WP No. 30826 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

[d] With this Court granting a stay of further proceedings in WP No. 19477/2025 with there being no further investigation, the continuance of the petitioner under suspension would cause a punitive action, especially when the petitioner cannot be said to be within the mischief zone to enter the possible departmental proceedings.

¶62

Sri P.V. Chandrasekhar, the learned counsel for the KIADB, submits that after the first respondent's order dated 27.06.2025, the petitioner has been relieved and he is repatriated to his parent department [Department of Land Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Bengaluru]. Sri Shivareddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate, supports the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension and the continuance of such decision stating that the first respondent has prima facie assessed the

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41797-DB WP No. 30826 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

circumstances as the petitioner was successfully trapped receiving certain money from the petitioner.

¶66

When queried on the petitioner's case that as a Survey Supervisor attached to the Office of the SLAO-1, KIADB he had no territorial jurisdiction to attend to any request for the survey of lands other than the KIADB lands in either Ramanagara or Kolar districts, Sri P.V. Chandrasekhar is categorical that this was the position as of date the petitioner was kept under suspension and continues to be so even after the subsequent change within the KIADB.

¶67

These rival submissions are considered to examine whether there would be any justification for the continuance of the petitioner under suspicion. Undoubtedly, the first respondent's reason to keep the petitioner under suspension is the registration of the FIR by the Lokayukta Police with the proceedings on 05.06.2025 [trap proceedings based on a

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:41797-DB WP No. 30826 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

complaint dated 21.04.2025]. This Court has granted stay of further proceedings under this FIR in WP No. 19477/2025.

¶71

The significance of this turn of events must be considered as also the fact that the first respondent is yet to start departmental proceedings issuing the Article of Charges. The undisputed fact is that the complaint relates to the survey of a land within Bengaluru Urban district and that the petitioner's responsibility [as a Survey Supervisor attached to the office of the SLAO-1, KIADB] was for the survey of the KIADB lands in Ramanagara and Kolar districts. However, there is no explanation on why the petitioner would receive money [if he has] for a work related to the survey of a non-KIADB land within Bengaluru Urban district.

¶72

This Court opines that, even at this stage,

¶73

there must be some overwhelming circumstances to connect the petitioner to the work outside his official

¶74

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:41797-DB WP No. 30826 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

capacity and the demand for gratification. Crucially, the proceedings against the petitioner was when he was on deputation with the KIADB, and the continuation of the suspension would serve no purpose except as being punitive. These are circumstances that the Tribunal should have considered, and the Tribunal’s failure to consider these has resulted in an irregular exercise of jurisdiction warranting an interference by this Court. Hence the following:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

The petition is allowed quashing the Tribunal's order dated 23.09.2025 and the

¶79

first respondent's order dated 27.06.2025 directing the first respondent, within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, to issue orders for petitioner's posting.

¶80