Dismissed¶66

Sri.H.M.Naik v. the Secretary

Suspension pending departmental enquiry – administrative order, not punishment

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2025WP/31981/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), WP No. 31981 of 2025 (S-RES), NC: 2025:KHC:44198, decided 29.10.2025 by Justice Ashok S.Kinagi — writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging suspension order No. 01/Po.Pa.Sco/2025-26 dated 19.06.2025 of Hindi teacher, Police Public School, Koramangala; suspension is administrative, not punitive; limited judicial review of suspension; mala fide / prima facie evidence threshold; Court cannot act as appellate authority over disciplinary authority; non-payment of subsistence allowance/half salary; precedents relied on: (2013) 16 SCC 147; 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483; petition dismissed, interim applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned suspension order is not an order of punishment; it is only an administrative order. ¶55

Sri.H.M.Naik Vs the Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the suspension order bearing No: 01/Po.Pa.Sco/2025-26 dated 19.06.2025 issued by respondent No.1 (Annexure B) is arbitrary, illegal and mala fide and liable to be quashed by certiorari, with reinstatement of the petitioner and consequential benefits.

¶24

Court's answer

The impugned suspension order is not an order of punishment; it is only an administrative order.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

Ordinarily the Court should not interfere with an order of suspension unless it is passed mala fide and without even prima facie evidence on record.

¶55

Key takeaways

The scope of judicial review over suspension orders is limited because passing of a suspension order is administrative in nature, suspension is not a punishment, and it lies in the exclusive domain of the employer.ratio¶59
The Tribunal or the Court cannot function as an appellate authority over the decision taken by the disciplinary authority.ratio¶59
The petitioner failed to prove that the impugned suspension order is arbitrary, illegal and without application of mind by placing cogent material on record.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Suspension pending departmental enquiry — administrative order, not punishment — limited judicial review. A Hindi teacher of Police Public School, Koramangala, suspended on 19.06.2025 following a complaint that he received money for securing a III standard admission, challenged the suspension under Articles 226 and 227 seeking certiorari and reinstatement. Held: interference with a suspension order is warranted only where it is mala fide or unsupported by even prima facie evidence; suspension lies in the exclusive domain of the employer and the Court/Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the disciplinary authority. The petitioner produced no cogent material to demonstrate arbitrariness, illegality or mala fides, and the subsequent admission of the complainant's ward was not a ground for relief. Relying on Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147, and U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjiv Rajan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483, the writ petition was dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:44198 WP No. 31981 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 31981 OF 2025 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. H.M.NAIK S/O. LATE. CHANDRA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS HINDI TEACHER, POLICE PUBLIC SCHOOL, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034

¶11

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

R/A. PILLENAHALLI, KALVEHALI THANDYA, KADUR, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577121 (NOW ORDER UNDER SUSPENSION)

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJA PATEL G K., ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44198 WP No. 31981 of 2025

HC-KAR

AND:

1. THE SECRETARY

POLICE PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

¶20

KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560034

¶21

THE PRINCIPAL

¶22

POLICE PUBLIC SCHOOL (CBSE) KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE SUSPENSION ORDER IN BEARING NO- 01/PO.PA.SCO/2025-26 DATED 19.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1 RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-B, THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO RULES. II. ISSUE A CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECTION TO THE 1^ST RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER IN SERVICE AND TREAT HIS AS HAVING CONTINUED IN SERVICE, UNAFFECTED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION AND GRANT ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:44198 WP No. 31981 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:

¶32

i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the suspension order bearing No: 01/Po.Pa.Sco/2025-26 dated 19.06.2025 issued by the 1^st respondent vide Annexure B, the same is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Rules;

¶33

ii. Issue a consequential direction to the 1^st respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service and treat him as having continued in service, unaffected by the impugned order of suspension and grant all the consequential benefits;

¶34

iii. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of cases, in the interest of justice.”

¶35

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition

¶36

are as follows:

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44198 WP No. 31981 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Hindi

¶40

Teacher on 05.05.2010 and he has completed his probationary period without any adverse remarks and he has discharged his duties in the said place to the best satisfaction of his superiors. One Smt.Rajeshwari M. lodged a complaint before respondent No.2 against the petitioner stating that she has given money to the petitioner to get a seat in Police Public School, for III standard admission to her brother's son i.e., Kavin Karthik. Based on the said complaint, respondent No.1 has issued a suspension order dated 19.06.2025 vide Annexure “B” by pending departmental enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.09.2025 vide Annexure “C” requesting the respondents to cancel the suspension order and release the salary. However, there was no action on the part of the respondents. It is contended that the petitioner is suffering from financial crisis and that the respondents have not paid

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44198 WP No. 31981 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

subsistence allowance / half salary during the suspension period. It is contended that the school authority, subsequent to the order of suspension, has given admission to the said Kavin Karthik to III standard “F” section. Therefore, it is contended that the said Rajeshwari has no grievance against the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of suspension vide Annexure “B”, filed this Writ Petition.

¶44

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been attached with the Admission Section and the entire process was done by respondent No.1 by conducting examinations. He submits that the petitioner has been made a victim of false allegation and he has not committed any misconduct. He submits that the order of suspension vide Annexure “B” is wholly arbitrary, illegal and

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44198 WP No. 31981 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

without application of mind. He also submits that due to the order of suspension, the petitioner is suffering from the financial crisis. Accordingly, prays to allow the writ petition.

¶49

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶50

It is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed as Hindi Teacher on 05.05.2010 and he has completed his probationary period without any adverse remarks. On account of the complaint lodged by one Rajeshwari M., the petitioner was issued with an order of suspension on 19.06.2025 vide Annexure “B” for having received a sum of money to get a seat in the Police Public School for III Standard admission to her brother’s son. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation requesting the respondents to revoke his order of suspension and pay three months salary vide Annexure “C” dated 25.09.2025.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:44198 WP No. 31981 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

From the perusal of the impugned order vide Annexure “B” it is evident that the petitioner is working in a responsible position as a Hindi Language Teacher at the Police Public School, Koramangala which is under the police department and that the petitioner is duty bound to perform his duties honestly in the educational institution and that the petitioner has illegally accepted money from the parents seeking admission and has publicly defamed the School under the Police Department.

¶55

The impugned order is not an order of punishment, it is only an administrative order. That ordinarily the Court should not interfere with the order of suspension unless it is passed in mala fide and without there being even a prima facie evidence on record. The petitioner, except pleading in the petition that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and without application of mind, has not produced any material to

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44198 WP No. 31981 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

demonstrate that the impugned order passed in is arbitrary and illegal / mala fide .

¶59

The scope of judicial review is limited in case of suspension for the reason that passing of suspension order is of an administrative nature and that suspension is not a punishment. Its purpose is only to forbid the delinquent to work in the office and it is in the exclusive domain of the employer. The Tribunal or the Court cannot function as an appellate authority over the decision taken by the disciplinary authority. This proposition can be fortified by the view expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of Union of India (UOI) and Ors, vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal , reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147 and U.P.Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others vs. Sanjiv Rajan , reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483 .

¶60

The respondents, based on the misconduct committed by the petitioner, on account of a complaint lodged by Rajeshwari M., has passed the impugned order. The

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:44198 WP No. 31981 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

petitioner has failed to prove that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and without application of mind, by placing cogent material on record. It is pleaded in the petition that, subsequent to the impugned order, a seat was given to Kavin Kartik. Hence, under such circumstances, the complaint is false, frivolous and untenable. It is not a ground to seek relief under this writ petition, as stated above.

¶64

Hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is

¶65

dismissed .

¶66

In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶67

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶68

RK (ONLINE) CT:KHV

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri.H.M.Naik v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.H.M.Naik v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kenchamma Vs Late Muddaih

Dr M N Lokesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Naveen Herald Simons Vs the State of Karnataka

Sanganna Irappa Sulibhavi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkataramana Alias Thimmappa Vs Smt Chaluvamma

Sharadamma Vs Deputy Tahsildar