Dismissed¶51

Sri H R Suresh v. the Principal Secretary

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2026WP/21051/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (DB: S.G.Pandit & Dr. K.Manmadha Rao, JJ.), WP No. 21051 of 2026 (S-KSAT), decided 13.07.2026 — writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 against KSAT Bengaluru order dated 01.07.2026 in Application No.2917/2026 refusing stay of suspension dated 12.06.2026 of Deputy Director, Department of Women and Child Development; suspension upheld as founded on complaints and charge memo (show cause notice dated 24.03.2026), not merely the pending transfer challenge; no prima facie case for interim order; contentions left open; Tribunal to consider application on merits.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition rejected. All contentions of the parties left open; the Tribunal shall consider Application No.2917/2026 on merits without being influenced by the observations made in this order. ¶51

Sri H R Suresh Vs the Principal Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner made out a prima facie case for interim stay of his suspension dated 12.06.2026, so as to warrant interference by this Court with the Tribunal's order dated 01.07.2026 rejecting the stay prayer.

¶44

Court's answer

The Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the petitioner's prayer to stay the order of suspension.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The suspension was passed on consideration of the complaints received against the petitioner and the charge memo under show cause notice dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure-A9); it was not merely because the petitioner had challenged his transfer before the Tribunal, but on the ground of allegations in the complaint and pending enquiry.

¶45

Key takeaways

On cumulative reading of the entire material on record, the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case for interim order.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India rejected. The petitioner, Deputy Director, Department of Women and Child Development, Chamarajnagar, was suspended by order dated 12.06.2026 (Annexure-A8) in the backdrop of complaints and a charge memo under show cause notice dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure-A9); his prayer before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (Application No.2917/2026) to stay the suspension was rejected by order dated 01.07.2026, which he challenged before the High Court. Held (S.G.Pandit & Dr. K.Manmadha Rao, JJ.; order per S.G.Pandit, J.): the suspension rested on the complaints received and pending enquiry, not merely on the pendency of the petitioner's transfer challenge (in which status quo operated in his favour); on cumulative reading of the material the petitioner made out no prima facie case for interim order, and there was no reason to disagree with the Tribunal's order and findings. All contentions left open; Tribunal to decide the application on merits uninfluenced by the observations in this order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:35440-DB WP No. 21051 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 21051 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI H R SURESH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE CHIKKARAMEGOWDA WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, CHAMARAJNAGAR - 571 313

¶12

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

R/AT C/O RUQUSANA AMEER WIFE OF ASLAM SHARIF PWD COLONY, NEAR SP OFFICE OPPOSITE TO OLD MANONIDHI INSTITUTE OF NURSING CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT -571 313. PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT NO.2061/1, 2^ND CROSS SUBASHANAGAR, MANDYA CITY -571 401. (BY SRI. R SUBRAMANYA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. KEERTHI REDDY, ADV.)

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35440-DB WP No. 21051 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

DEVELOPMENT AND EMPOWERMENT OF DIFFERENTLY ABLED SENIOR CITIZENS GATE NO.3, 1^ST FLOOR, M S BUILDING BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶20

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND EMPOWERMENT OF DIFFERENTLY ABLED SENIOR CITIZENS GATE NO.3, 1^ST FLOOR, M S BUILDING BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶21

THE UNDER- SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA-2 DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND EMPOWERMENT OF DIFFERENTLY ABLED SENIOR CITIZENS GATE NO.3, 1^ST FLOOR, M S BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. V SHIVAREDDY, AGA)

¶24

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO.2917/2026 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU; B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, WRIT OR DIRECTION BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 01/07/2026 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.2917/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35440-DB WP No. 21051 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶31

The petitioner is before this Court questioning order dated 01.07.2026 in Application No.2917/2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder the petitioner’s prayer to stay the order of suspension dated 12.06.2026 (Anexure-A8) is rejected.

¶32

Heard learned counsel Sri.R.Subramanya for Smt.Keerthi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shiva Reddy for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶33

Learned counsel Sri.R.Subramanya for

¶34

petitioner would submit that the petitioner is subjected to transfer and he has challenged his order of transfer before the Tribunal, whereunder the order of status quo is

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35440-DB WP No. 21051 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

operating in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Further, learned counsel would submit that to favour one of the officials, on certain false allegations, the petitioner is kept under suspension on 12.06.2026 (Annexure-A8). Learned counsel would submit that those allegations are false and baseless and created only to keep the petitioner under suspension so that posting could be provided to Smt.B.Manjula who is a lower cadre officer. Thus, he would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the prima-facie case made out by the petitioner and refused to stay the suspension of the petitioner.

¶38

Per contra, learned Additional Government

¶39

Advocate Sri.V.Shiva Reddy would submit that the petitioner was kept under suspension not for any other reason but for certain allegations and complaints received against the petitioner. He submits that it is not a case for interim order of stay, as the petitioner has not made out prima-facie case. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35440-DB WP No. 21051 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶43

the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition

¶44

papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, rejecting petitioner’s prayer to stay the order of suspension.

¶45

We have perused the order of suspension. The order of suspension is passed taking into consideration the complaints received against the petitioner and also taking note of the charge memo issued under show cause notice dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure-A9). The suspension is not merely on the ground that the petitioner has challenged his transfer before the Tribunal, but on the ground of allegation in the complaint and pending enquiry.

¶46

At this stage, it may not be appropriate for us to go into the allegations against the petitioner. On cumulative reading of the entire material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out prima-facie case for interim order and there is

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:35440-DB WP No. 21051 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

no reason to disagree with the order passed by the

¶51

Tribunal and the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected .

¶52

All contentions of the parties are left open and without being influenced by the observations made in this order, the Tribunal shall consider the Application on merits.

¶53

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶54

Sd/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

¶55

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri H R Suresh v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H R Suresh v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ravindra Vithal Jartarkar Vs the State of Karnataka

H v Raghavendra Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri B S Shiva Kumar

Sri K N Rajappa Vs the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Hff)

Shivananda R Shivapura Vs the Principal Secretary

Smt Surekha Vs State of Karnataka