Smt.Padmavathi B.S. Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt.Padmavathi B.S. Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitions allowed: the Tribunal's common order dated 14.10.2025 in Application Nos. 2512/2025, 2496/2025, 2505/2025 and 2507/2025 quashed; the second respondent's suspension orders dated 06.06.2025 (Annexures-A12, A9, A7 and A8) quashed; respondents at liberty to take further action in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal has overlooked material circumstances in rejecting the petitioners' applications as against the second respondent's decision to keep them under suspension and, if so, whether this Court should interfere.

Court's answer

On a prima facie scale, a case of gross dereliction of duty sufficient to justify keeping the petitioners under suspension is not made out; the Tribunal overlooked material circumstances, namely that officers issued similar show cause notices received only a warning (undisputed), that wrong vehicle numbers resulted from inadvertence of the warehouse Managers, and that the petitioners acted upon complaints against the FPDs leading to action suspending their authorisations.

Ratio / Principle

It is unfair and unjust to permit the continuance of the petitioners under suspension; the Court accordingly interfered not only with the Tribunal's order but also with the second respondent's decision to keep the petitioners under suspension.

Key takeaways

The quashing does not prevent the concerned authorities from continuing the proceedings under the show cause notice or from moving the petitioners from their current positions; the respondents are expressly left at liberty to take further action in accordance with law.ratio¶134

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law – suspension – judicial review – Karnataka High Court (Division Bench of B M Shyam Prasad and T M Nadaf JJ., order per B M Shyam Prasad J.), 27.10.2025 – Four Food Inspectors (with additional charge of caseworker) of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Bengaluru ranges, suspended by Commissioner's order No.FCSCA-ADMN0OO/2/2025 dated 06.06.2025 on allegations of permitting unauthorized vehicles to transport food grains from warehouses and failing to act against Fair Price Depots (FPDs); KSAT rejected their applications (Nos. 2512/2025, 2496/2025, 2505/2025, 2507/2025) by order dated 14.10.2025 observing that judicial review in suspension matters is very limited and suspension keeps an officer outside the 'mischief zone'. On writ under Articles 226 & 227, the Court held that on a prima facie scale a case of gross dereliction of duty justifying suspension was not made out: it remained undisputed that officers served similar show cause notices got only a warning; wrong vehicle registration numbers stemmed from inadvertent error by warehouse Managers; and the petitioners acted upon FPD complaints, filing reports acted upon to suspend FPD authorisations. The Tribunal overlooked these material circumstances. Writ petitions allowed; Tribunal's common order and suspension orders quashed; authorities left free to continue the show cause notice proceedings or move the petitioners. Reference made to Rule-10, Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. No precedent cases cited or relied upon.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

WRIT PETITION NO. 31797 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) C/W

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

WRIT PETITION NO. 31922 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) WRIT PETITION NO. 32022 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) WRIT PETITION NO. 32047 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

IN WP No. 31797/2025 BETWEEN:

SMT. PADMAVATHI B. S. W/O D. NAGESH RAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS FOOD INSPECTOR AND ADDITION CHARGE OF CASE WORKER FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS BENGALURU WEST RANGE, BENGALURU R/AT #133, 10^TH E CROSS, SANJEEVINI NAGARA, KALYANA NAGRA, MOODALAPALYA BENGALURU - 560 072.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHUPATHI M J., ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

HC-KAR

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE - 560 001

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS NO.8, CUNNIGHAM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2025 PASSED IN APP.No.2512/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE ANNEXUREA AND ALLOW THE APP.No.2512/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION BEARING No.FCSCAADMN0OO/2/2025 DATED 06.06.2025 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A12 AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE APPLICANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ii) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS APPLICATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

3 -

HC-KAR

IN WP NO.31922/2025

BETWEEN:

SRI. GIRISHA S S/O SOMAPPA. M AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS FOOD INSPECTOR AND ADDITION CHARGE OF CASE WORKER AT FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, EAST RANGE, BENGALURU - 560 042 R/AT NO.20, SRIHARI NILAYA, CQAL LAYOUT, ATTUR YALAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHUPATHI M J., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE - 560 001

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

HC-KAR

NO.8, CUNNIGHAM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., LEARNED ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14/10/2025 PASSED IN A.NO.2496/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE A.NO.2496/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION BEARING NO.FCSCA-ADMN0OO/2/2025 DATED 06/06/2025 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A9 AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE APPLICANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ii) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS APPLICATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN WP NO.32022/2025

BETWEEN:

S. NAGARAJA S/O SAMPPAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS FOOD INSPECTOR AND ADDITION CHARGE OF CASE WORKER FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS BENGALURU NORTH RANGE, BENGALURU R/AT #49, 6^TH MAIN, JNANAJOTHI NAGARA JNANABHARATHI,

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

HC-KAR

BENGALURU - 560 056

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHUPATHI M J., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE - 560 001

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS NO.8, CUNNIGHAM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2025 PASSED IN A.No.2505/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE A.No.2505/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION BEARING No. FCSCA-ADMN0OO/2/2025 DATED 6.6.2025 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A7 AND

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

HC-KAR

CONSEQUENTLY GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE APPLICANT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ii) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS APPLICATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN WP NO.32047/2025

BETWEEN:

SRI. RAJAIAH S/O PUTTAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS FOOD INSPECTOR AND ADDITION CHARGE OF CASE WORKER FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS BENGALURU SOUTH RANGE, BENGALURU R/AT NO.107, 4^TH MAIN KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHUPATHI M J., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE - 560 001

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

HC-KAR

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS NO.8, CUNNIGHAM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2025 PASSED IN A.No.2507/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE A.No.2507/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION BEARING No.FCSCA-ADMN0OO/2/2025 DATED 06.06.2025 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A8 AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE APPLICANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ii) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS APPLICATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR

PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

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

The petitioners are working as Food Inspectors

with the second respondent with the additional charge of a caseworker with the office of the Joint Director. The second respondent has kept the petitioners under suspension by orders that are called in question with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal' ], and the corresponding applications are in Nos.2512/2025, 2496/2025, 2505/2025 and 2507/2025. The Tribunal has rejected these

applications.

It is undisputed that the allegations

against these petitioners are similar. It is alleged that they have permitted the use of unauthorized vehicles to transport the food grains from the corresponding warehouses and that they have not taken action against these Fair Price Depots [FPDs]. The Tribunal

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

has granted the interim order staying the second respondent's decision to keep the petitioners under suspension, and the petitioners have had the advantage of this order until disposal of the applications. However, the Tribunal, by the impugned order, has rejected these applications observing that the scope of judicial review in the matters of suspension is very limited and that an Officer is kept under suspension to ensure that such Officer is outside the mischief zone and that the proceedings contemplated are completed without the officer taking advantage of the continuance in the same office.

3. The petitioners contend, amongst others,

that the certain Food Inspectors have been served with similar show cause notices and that those proceedings have culminated with just a warning; and the Tribunal has observed that whether the petitioners are similarly placed as those who have been administered a warning will have to be

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

examined and an appropriate decision taken by the concerned.

Sri Narayanaswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that a decision to keep an official under suspension will be justified when it is under any of the circumstances enumerated under Rule-10 of the Karnataka Civil Service [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1957 [for short, '1957 Rules' ] and the only circumstance that could be held against the petitioners is a prima facie case of gross dereliction of duty but in the present circumstances, there cannot be any allegations of gross dereliction. In elaboration, Sri Narayanaswamy canvasses thus.

4.1 The petitioners, in response to the show cause notices issued, have categorically stated that unauthorized vehicles have not been used; that the Manager of the concerned warehouses has made an inadvertent error in mentioning the registration numbers of the authorized vehicles and that the

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

HC-KAR

petitioners, on receipt of complaints against the FPDs within their area, have visited those FPDs and filed Reports which are acted upon by the superiors to suspend the authorization of those FPDs.

4.2 The petitioners were given the

additional charge of a caseworker to oversee the work associated with the warehouses and presently they have no jurisdiction over the same warehouses and though they oversee the activities of the FPDs in the same area, it cannot be said that they would be within the mischief zone because the allegations against the petitioners are based on documents and there is nothing otherwise.

Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, supports the Tribunal’s impugned order based on the reasons assigned and supports the decision to keep the petitioners under suspension emphasizing that the cause for such decision is dereliction in discharge of duties and that

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

HC-KAR

this is prima facie seen by the second respondent because the activities of the FPDs were not monitored

to ensure that there are no complaints.

The question for consideration in the

peculiar circumstances of the case and the rival submissions is:

Whether the Tribunal has overlooked material circumstances in rejecting the petitioners' application as against the second respondent's decision to keep them under suspension, and if the Tribunal has overlooked material circumstances, should this Court interfere?

At the outset, this Court must observe

that the petitioners' case that those who were issued with similar show cause notices have only been issued with a warning remains undisputed. This would be a very material circumstance as would be the nature of the allegations and the petitioners' response thereto. The petitioners are categorical that

13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

HC-KAR

they have not permitted the use of unauthorized vehicles , but in the records, because of inadvertence by the Manager of the concerned warehouses, the vehicle numbers have been wrongly mentioned. If this is the next set of circumstances, and the other reason is that they have, undisputedly, acted upon the information about certain wrongdoing by the concerned FPDs resulting in their Report and action thereupon to suspend the authorization of those FPDs.

This Court concludes that, in the circumstances discussed and on a prima facie scale, a case for gross dereliction of duty to justify a decision to keep them under suspension is not made out and that the Tribunal has overlooked the material circumstances. It will be unfair and unjust to permit the continuance of the petitioners under suspension despite this opinion. The question for consideration is accordingly answered to interfere not just with the

14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

Tribunal's order but also with the second

respondent's decision to keep the petitioners under suspension. At this stage, Sri Vikas Rojipura submits that this Court must observe that this disposal cannot prevent the concerned authorities from continuing the proceedings under the show cause notice or from moving the petitioners from the current position. Sri Narayanaswamy is also heard in the light of these submissions. In the circumstances, this Court finds considerable force in the submission as regards liberty to the afore. As such, the following:

ORDER

[a] The petitions are allowed.

[b] The Tribunal's common order dated 14.10.2025 in Application Nos.2512/2025, 2496/2025, 2505/2025 and 2507/2025 are quashed.

[c] The second respondent's order of suspension dated 06.06.2025 [Annexures-A12, A9, A7 and

15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER

HC-KAR

A8 in the corresponding writ petitions] are

quashed.

[d] The respondents will be at liberty to take further action in accordance with law.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

Sd/(T.M. NADAF) JUDGE

AN/-