Sri. Srinivas. T. R. Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. SRINIVAS. T. R. S/O LATE T R RAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (VVIP SECURITY DIVISION) OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU CITY, R/AT GROUND FLOOR, NEW NO.9, PID NO.92, 8^TH CROSS, J.C.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 006.

¶10

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:45796-DB WP No. 33395 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶20

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU - 560001.

¶21

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (ADMN) OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VVIP SECURITY DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU - 560001.

¶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 16.10.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN APPLICATION No. 2475/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION.

¶26

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

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45796-DB WP No. 33395 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

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

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

The petitioner, an Inspector of Police attached with the VVIP Security Division, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, is unsuccessful in his Application No.2475/2025 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, the Tribunal ]. The petitioner has invoked the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 impugning the fourth respondent's order dated 18.5.2025 and the second respondent's confirmation of such order by the order dated 21.05.2025.

¶33

The petitioner is kept under suspension

¶34

under these impugned orders. The imputation against the petitioner, in short, is that on 20.04.2025 he was present at the house of a retired Director

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45796-DB WP No. 33395 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka, who has breathed his last under circumstances that have been investigated, and that he has spoken to the media about the cause of the death. The Tribunal, repelling the contention on behalf of the petitioner that he is kept under suspension contrary to the Karnataka State Police [Disciplinary Proceedings] Rules, 1965 [for short, the 'Police Disciplinary Rules' ], has opined that the decision is as contemplated under these Rules.

¶38

The Tribunal has, insofar as the

¶39

petitioner's case that he cannot be kept under suspension for a period beyond six months, directed the third and the fourth respondents to constitute a Review Committee for a decision on the continuation of the petitioner under suspension.The Tribunal has referred to the Circular dated 28.06.2024. This Circular dated 28.06.2024 reads that if the continuation of an officer under suspension beyond

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45796-DB WP No. 33395 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

six months is inevitable, the competent authority must compulsorily ensure that all the circumstances

¶43

are reviewed by a Committee and that its recommendations, with reasons in support thereof, are placed with the State Government for a decision.

¶44

Sri Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that [i] this Court must intervene because the continuation of the petitioner under suspension with the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings [ with the Charge Memo dated 25.08.2025 ] would be impermissible in law, [ii] even according to Rule 5(6) of the Rules, if the disciplinary proceedings cannot culminate in a final order within six months, the State Government must take an appropriate decision and [iii] in the present case, such period would expire on 18.11.2025 but no measures are taken that would enable a decision by this time.

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45796-DB WP No. 33395 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Sri Vikas Rojipura, a learned Additional Government Advocate, submits on instructions that the second respondent is the competent authority to constitute the Review Committee as contemplated in the Circular dated 28.06.2024, and that this respondent would ensure a decision is taken to constitute a committee within a week from today. The learned Government Advocate submits that if the decision is to continue the petitioner under suspension beyond six months, such decision will have to be taken by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Karnataka and that such decision will be taken within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Review Committee’s recommendation.

¶48

6 Sri Vikas Rojipura emphasizes that these instructions are in recognition of the undisputed position that a Police Officer cannot be kept under suspension for an uncertain period or an indefinite

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45796-DB WP No. 33395 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

period, and that if such officer is to be under suspension for any period beyond six months because a final order cannot be rendered within such period, the State Government must take an appropriate decision in this regard.

¶52

The provisions of Rule 5(1) and 5(6) of the

¶53

Police Disciplinary Rules read as under:

¶54

"5 Suspension pending enquiry or criminal prosecution:-

¶55

(1) The Government or the Appointing Authority or any authority superior to such authority or the authorities specified in column (4) of the Schedule may place a Police Officer specified in the corresponding entry of column (2) thereof under suspension:-

¶56

(a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending: or

¶57

(b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial;

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45796-DB WP No. 33395 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Provided that where an order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the Appointing Authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointment Authority the circumstances in which the order was made."

¶61

"5(6): Where a police officer has been suspended and final orders in the inquiry pending against him have not been passed within a period of six months from the date of order of suspension, the case shall be reported to the Government for such orders as it may deem fit".

¶62

The Rules may not stipulate that

¶63

suspension must continue notwithstanding the Charge Memo being issued, but the underlying principle under Rule 5 of the Rules is that a decision must be taken at the earliest on the continuance of a police officer under suspension and if the disciplinary proceedings cannot be completed within six months by a final order, the State Government must take a

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:45796-DB WP No. 33395 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

decision offering reasons for the decision that could be. The Circular dated 28.06.2024 is in accord with this underlying principle and though Mr. Vijaya Kumar argues that the Disciplinary Authority cannot continue the petitioner under suspension with the issuance of Charge Memo on 25.08.2025, this Court is not persuaded to intervene on such ground.

¶67

However, this Court opines that the provisions of Rule 5(6) and the Circular dated 28.06.2024 undermines the second aspect of the petitioner's case that his continuation cannot be for an indefinite period as exposited by the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India¹ . As such, this Court concludes that the petition must stand disposed of with specific directions in continuation of the directions issued by the Tribunal in the light of the stand that is taken before this

¶68

1[2015] 7 SCC 291

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:45796-DB WP No. 33395 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Court on the constitution of a Review Committee as contemplated under the Circular dated 28.06.2024. It is needless to observe that it should be open to the second respondent to take a decision on the discontinuance of the petitioner being under suspension even before the expiry of the six months period contemplated under Rule 5(6) of the Rules keeping in mind that the imputation against the petitioner, as observed by the Tribunal, does not relate to any corrupt practice and that the petitioner has been served with Charge Memo on 25.08.2025. Hence, the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

[i] The petition stands disposed of directing the second respondent to constitute a Review Committee as specified by the Circular dated 28.06.2024 within seven [7] days from today observing that such

¶75

Committee shall place its

¶76

11 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:45796-DB WP No. 33395 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

recommendations with the Additional Chief

¶80

Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Karnataka within the next seven [7] days.

¶81

[ii] The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Karnataka shall communicate its orders within a week from the date of receipt of the recommendation.

¶82

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶83

SD/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶84

NV

Sri. Srinivas. T. R. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Srinivas. T. R. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Chethan Naik B T Vs Smt Roja T N

Smt Jyothi v S Vs Manager

Sri Girish K C Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Nagaraj B

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka