Allowed¶34

Sri Dinesh Kumar G T v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2025WP/9047/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru; WP No. 9047 of 2025 (S-KSAT); decided 07.04.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:14649-DB; automatic rescission of suspension after six months under amended Rule 10(5)(b) KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 absent extension order; parity/equal treatment of similarly circumstanced litigants; reliance on W.P.No.22677/2024 (Sri Loknath R vs. State of Karnataka, 12.12.2024); KSAT Application No.117/2025 order dated 18.03.2025 set aside; restoration of service and monetary benefits; acceptance of duty report.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed: Petitioner's suspension rescinded with effect from expiry of six months from issuance; all service and monetary benefits to be extended; duty report to be accepted by jurisdictional Respondents forthwith; costs made easy. ¶34

Sri Dinesh Kumar G T Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether, under amended Rule 10(5)(b) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, a suspension order that specifies no period automatically stands rescinded on the lapse of six months from its issuance, in the absence of an extension order. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

The Petitioner's suspension stands rescinded with effect from the date on which a period of six months expires from its issuance.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

All benefits, service and monetary, have to be extended to the Petitioner, and his duty report shall be accepted by the jurisdictional Respondents forthwith.

¶37

Key takeaways

A relief granted to a litigant in a given fact matrix ordinarily cannot be denied to other similarly circumstanced persons, in the absence of demonstrable variables.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (S-KSAT) allowed. The Petitioner, a civil servant formerly working as Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority, aggrieved by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 18.03.2025 negativing his Application No.117/2025 (which had assailed the suspension order dated 18.03.2025), approached the Writ Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Relying on the Co-ordinate Bench decision in W.P.No.22677/2024 (S-KSAT) (Sri Loknath R vs. State of Karnataka, disposed on 12.12.2024), and noting that the learned AGA could not differentiate the fact matrix, the Court (order per Krishna S Dixit J.; Ramachandra D. Huddar J. joining) held that by virtue of amended Rule 10(5)(b) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, the suspension stands automatically rescinded on the lapse of six months in the absence of an extension order. Accordingly, the Petitioner's suspension was rescinded with effect from the date of expiry of six months; all service and monetary benefits were ordered to be extended and his duty report accepted forthwith; costs made easy.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:14649-DB WP No. 9047 of 2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 9047 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. DINESH KUMAR G T, S/O. LATE G. THIPPERUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WAS WORKING AS COMMISSIONER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JLB ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. A1-107, VAISHNAVI NORTH 24 APARTMENT, PAMPA EXTENSION, RANNA ROAD, KEMPAPURA, HEBBALA, BANGALORE 560 024.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SATISH K.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA.,AGA)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14649-DB WP No. 9047 of 2025

¶19

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/03/2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.117/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND B)SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/03/2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.117/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION NO.117/2025 AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND

¶22

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

Petitioner a Civil Servant is knocking at the doors of Writ Court being aggrieved by State Administrative

¶26

Tribunal’s order dated 18.03.2025 whereby his Application No.117/2025 has been negatived. In the said Application Petitioner had assailed the suspension order dated 18.03.2025.

¶27

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits and we agree with the same that the subject matter of this petition is substantially similar to the one in

¶28

W.P.No.22677/2024 (S-KSAT) between SRI LOKNATH.R

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14649-DB WP No. 9047 of 2025

¶30

vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA disposed off by a Co-ordinate

¶31

Bench of this Court on 12.12.2024 wherein it has been held that by virtue of amended Rule 10(5)(b) of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, the suspension stands automatically rescinded on the lapse of six months, in the absence of extension order.

¶32

Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that though the suspension order does not specify any period, the same spends itself once six months lapse from the date of its issuance. This view is supported by the cognate decision in LOKNATH supra. Despite vehement

¶33

submissions learned AGA is not in a position to differentiate the fact matrix of this case from that of the said decision. It hardly needs to be stated that a relief granted to a litigant in a given fact matrix ordinarily cannot be denied to other similarly circumstanced persons, in the absence of demonstrable variables.

¶34

In the above circumstances, Petitioner’s suspension stands rescinded with effect from the date on which a period of six months expires. As a consequence, all

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:14649-DB WP No. 9047 of 2025

¶37

benefits service & monetary have to be extended to the Petitioner, whose duty report shall be accepted by the jurisdictional Respondents forthwith.

¶38

Costs made easy.

¶39

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶40

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶41