Sri Mahadevaswamy M S Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9946-DB WP No. 6872 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 6872 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MAHADEVASWAMY M S S/O LATE M.SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLAGE, NANJANGUD, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 301. R/O NO.56, 3^RD CROSS, GURUKULA LAYOUT MYSURU-560 031.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MS BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶13

COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION. NO.1/2, PALACE ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶14

CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, 1/2, PALACE RD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:9946-DB WP No. 6872 of 2025

¶17

PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLAGE, NANJANGUD, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 301.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.B RAVINDRANATH.,AGA)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2025 PASSED IN A.No-4036/2024 BY THE KSAT BENGALURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND II) THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE TOP NOTED PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER 03.03.2025 PASSED IN A.No-4036/2024 BY THE KSAT BENGLAURU IN A.No-4036/2024 MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶25

Petitioner, an Associate Professor of a Government

¶26

First Grade College, is grieving before the Writ Court, against the dismissal of his Application No.4036/2024 at the hands of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal vide

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:9946-DB WP No. 6872 of 2025

¶29

order dated 3.3.2025. In the said Application, he had called in question the order of suspension dated 13.8.2024.

¶30

Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Jayakumar S Patil appearing for the petitioner submits that suspension cannot be resorted to in a casual manner; the text of Rule 10 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 is very specific that there has to be at least minimum evidentiary material on record for vouching the prima facie case for suspension and that the order of suspension should reflect due application of mind to such material; all the assets & liabilities of the petitioner have been duly reflected in the annual statements given to the employer in a normative way; all this aspect having not been properly addressed by the Tribunal, petitioner has been prejudiced by the impugned order. Lastly, he tells us that the criminal proceeding under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been stayed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9946-DB WP No. 6872 of 2025

¶32

Learned AGA appearing for the respondents

¶33

made submission in justification of the impugned order of

¶34

the Tribunal and the reasons assigned by it in support thereof. He further submits that petitioner is a teacher and the list of properties which have been prima facie ascertained would show a concrete case of acquisition grossly disproportionate to known source of income; power to suspend is the prerogative of the employer, although it is regulated by the Rules; there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner under the provisions of 1988 Act; whatever worthy material collected by the Lokayukta having been looked into, the subject suspension order has been issued. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶36

4.1 Firstly, the power to suspend an employee in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding or when a

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:9946-DB WP No. 6872 of 2025

¶39

criminal proceeding is pending against him, is not in dispute, although its exercise is regulated inter alia by Rule 10 of 1957 Rules. Court or Tribunal cannot readily interfere in matters of suspension when it is effected on the basis of some tangible evidence; apparently, in this case, the Lokayukta has collected some information/material which has been made the basis of suspension order. Whether such material/information would be sufficient to take the call, does not belong to the domain of Writ Court nor the Tribunal. Therefore, the contention that the suspension order has been issued without any basis, cannot be acceded to.

¶40

4.2 The second contention that the petitioner has been periodically declaring all assets & liabilities with the employer, may arguably be true. However, merely by such declaration, one cannot readily jump to a hasty conclusion that all those properties have been acquired from the known source of income. Declaration of assets & liabilities by a civil servant is one thing, the regularity of their acquisition, is another. No Rule or Ruling is brought to our notice to the effect that whatever assets have been declared periodically by the civil servant should be presumed to be acquired by the known source of income. Very pertinently, a property worth Rs.2,00,00,000/- is said to have been gifted to the petitioner by his brother. What is the family background of his brother and in what

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9946-DB WP No. 6872 of 2025

¶42

circumstances, such a huge gift is made, are a matter for enquiry.

¶43

4.3 The third contention that the criminal proceedings vide Crime No.14/2023 launched against the petitioner has been stayed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, does not come to the aid of petitioner. Stay of a proceeding is one thing, its quashment is another; a host of factors enter while granting interim protection in criminal proceedings.

¶44

4.4 The last contention of Mr.Patil that whatever material information that has been gathered by Lokayukta in the raid in question, would not constitute evidentiary material in terms of Rule 10(1)(aa) of 1957 Rules and therefore, the suspension order is unsustainable, is very difficult to agree with. Petitioner is only an Associate Professor in a Government First Grade College. The Lokayukta on the basis of complaints have raided several premises with which petitioner and his wife are associated and fished out abundant evidentiary material. The excess acquisition is 470 per cent.

¶45

4.5 Learned AGA is right in telling us that the petitioner has been transferred to the Government First Grade College, Banawara in Arasikere taluk, Hassan district, from Nanjanagudu in Mysore district, so that he may not deter or influence the witnesses. He is also right

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:9946-DB WP No. 6872 of 2025

¶48

in contending that the Tribunal after considering all aspects of the matter, has negatived petitioner’s challenge and therefore, this court has least justification for granting interference, in discretionary matters like this.

¶49

In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.

¶50

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶51

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶52

RD/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri Mahadevaswamy M S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahadevaswamy M S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Jyothy Fabricare Service Ltd., Vs the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager

Sri. G. C. Krishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ravi Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. J Krishnaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Purandar K Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. C.N. Ramesh, Vs the State of Karnataka