Disposed¶48

Sri. Shivanand Marakeri v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2025WP/31579/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (Articles 226/227) by a Panchayat Development Officer against KSAT's refusal of ex-parte stay of suspension imposed on 09.10.2025 under Rule 10, KCS (CCA) Rules 1957, on the CEO's communication citing a social-media video clip alleging bribe for Khata transfer; High Court (Karnataka) directs Tribunal to decide interim relief on 30.10.2025 and decide A.No.4365/2025 on merits by 14.11.2025; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief or interim protection granted by the High Court; petition disposed of with directions to the KSAT - to decide the petitioner's request for interim order on 30.10.2025 (with opportunity for the Disciplinary Authority to place material) and, in any event, to dispose of Application No.4365/2025 on merits by 14.11.2025. ¶48

Sri. Shivanand Marakeri Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere at this stage when the Tribunal is yet to decide on the merits of the petitioner's request for interim order (ex-parte stay of the suspension order). +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

Observing that the Tribunal is yet to decide on the merits of the petitioner's request for interim order, this Court was not inclined to interfere at this stage.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

If the Disciplinary Authority is duly represented on the next date of hearing, the Tribunal must consider the petitioner's request for interim order in the light of the grounds urged and the material that could be placed on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority.

¶43

Key takeaways

The Tribunal was requested to decide the petitioner's request for interim order on 30.10.2025.ratio¶47
In any event, the Tribunal was requested to dispose of the petitioner's application on merits by 14.11.2025.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Division Bench: B M Shyam Prasad & T M Nadaf JJ.; order per B M Shyam Prasad J.), WRIT PETITION No. 31579 of 2025 (S-KSAT), decided 23.10.2025: The petitioner, Panchayat Development Officer, Sasalu Gram Panchayat (Doddaballapura Taluk), was kept under suspension by order dated 09.10.2025 of the Executive Officer (third respondent/Disciplinary Authority) under Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, issued on a communication from the Chief Executive Officer (second respondent) referring to a social-media video clip alleging illegal gratification received while the petitioner was PDO at Hardipura Grama Panchayat for work related to transfer of Khata. His Application No.4365/2025 before the KSAT (Bengaluru Bench) was pending, the Tribunal having refused ex-parte stay. Declining to interfere at this threshold, the Court requested the Tribunal to decide the interim-order request on 30.10.2025 - considering the grounds urged and material placed if the Disciplinary Authority is duly represented - and in any event to dispose of the application on merits by 14.11.2025. Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:41796-DB WP No. 31579 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 31579 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

SRI. SHIVANAND MARAKERI S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SASALU GRAM PANCHAYAT, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, R/AT NO. 1092, 10TH BLOCK, JPH APARTMENT, ALLALASANDRA, G.K.V.K. BENGALURU-560 065.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR B O.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEVELOPMENT,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:41796-DB WP No. 31579 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

K.G. ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶18

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BEERASANDRA, CHAPPARADA KALLU, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110.

¶19

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA-561 203.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R1)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2025 IN A.No-4365/2025 PASSED BY THE KSAT BENGALURU BENCH BENGALURU.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:41796-DB WP No. 31579 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

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

¶30

The petitioner was working as a Panchayat Development Officer [PDO] with Sasalu Grama Panchayth, Doddaballapur Taluk, and the petitioner’s grievance is with the third respondent -Disciplinary Authority's order dated 09.10.2025 under Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1957 to keep him under suspension. The petitioner's application as against this order with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short, ‘ the Tribunal’ ] in Application No.4365/2025 is pending consideration. The petitioner has invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the Tribunal has refused to grant the petitioner ex-parte stay of the order of suspension.

¶31

The Disciplinary Authority has issued the impugned order on receipt of the communication

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:41796-DB WP No. 31579 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

from the Chief Executive Officer [ the second respondent ], and the second respondent has referred to a video clip circulating on the social media to allege that the petitioner, while he was working as PDO with the Hardipura Grama Panchayat, Doddaballapur, had received certain illegal gratification for the work related to transfer of Khata for an immovable property.

¶36

Sri B.O. Anil Kumar, the learned counsel

¶37

for the petitioner, submits that [i] the allegation against the petitioner is based on a video clipping seen by the Chief Executive Officer and not by the Disciplinary Authority, [ii] it is the Disciplinary Authority who had to be satisfied that there was prima facie case for keeping the petitioner under suspension and [iii] that the Disciplinary Authority could not have simply acted upon the intimation or communication by the Chief Executive Officer.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:41796-DB WP No. 31579 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

4. If Sri B.O. Anil Kumar emphasizes the

¶42

following and contends that not even a complaint is registered against the petitioner and the decision is politically motivated, Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, submits that [i] the Tribunal is yet to decide on the petitioner's request for interim order, [ii] the application is scheduled to be listed with the Tribunal on 30.10.2025, [iii] on 30.10.2025, the Tribunal can examine the petitioner's grievance with opportunity to the respondents to place on record all the details which are prima facie examined for the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension.

¶43

At the outset, this Court must observe that the Tribunal is yet to decide on the merits of the petitioner's request for interim order. If the Disciplinary Authority is duly represented on the next date of hearing, the Tribunal must consider the

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:41796-DB WP No. 31579 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

petitioner's request for interim order in the light of the grounds urged and the material that could be placed on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. As such, this Court is not inclined at this stage to interfere except to request the Tribunal to decide the petitioner's request for interim order on 30.10.2025 and in any event, to dispose of the petitioner's application on merits by 14.11.2025.

¶48

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶49

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶50

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶51

Sri. Shivanand Marakeri v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shivanand Marakeri v. the Commissioner

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

The State of Karnataka Vs Srinivasa

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri M.R. Hiremath

Gopi S a Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K H Thippeshappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K M Narendra Kumar Vs the Commissioner

Shanthi Mani v G Vs State of Karnataka