SRI KRISHNAMURTHY M vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WP No. 25346 of 2026
C/W WP No. 27244 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 25346 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 27244 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)
IN WP NO. 25346/2026
BETWEEN:
SRI SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE THIMMANAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
WORKING AS
PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
SINDHUVALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
MYSURU TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571311.
ALSO RESIDING AT NO.8032,
ND
2 PHASE, UNION BANK ROAD,
VIJAYANAGAR IV STAGE,
MYSURU 570017.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A NAGARAJAPPA, ADV. FOR
SRI NAVEEN J. N., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,
M. S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001.
Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
WP No. 25346 of 2026
C/W WP No. 27244 of 2026
2. THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT RAJ COMMISSIONERATE,
K.R. ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560009.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
MYSURU - 570001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RUEBEN JACOB, AGA A/W
SRI B.S. SUDHINDRA, ADV. FOR R1 & 2
SRI PAWAN KUMAR M.N., ADV. FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2026 PASSED BY
THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU,
IN APPLICATION NO.3209/2026, INSOFAR AS IT REJECTS THE
PETITIONERS APPLICATION SEEKING INTERIM RELIEF MARKED AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 27244/2026
BETWEEN:
SRI KRISHNAMURTHY M
S/O. MR. MUNIRAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS
PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICERS,
CHANNADEVI AGRAHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203,
R/AT NO.114, PITAKANAPALYA,
HULLE GOWDANAHALLI, DASANAPURA,
BENGALURU - 562162.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ADITHYA R CHAKRAGIRI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
- 3 -
WP No. 25346 of 2026
C/W WP No. 27244 of 2026
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU -560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ
COMMISSIONERATE,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
K.G. ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU- 560 009.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING,
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
CHAPPARADAKALLU, KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI BHASKAR GOWDA N.M., ADV. FOR R3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM
THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN
RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.08.2026 PASSED IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 3193/2026 (ANNEXURE-A) AND B) SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.08.2026 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 3193/2026, IN SO FAR AS REJECTION
OF THE INTERIM PRAYER SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT INTERIM
RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER IN APPLICATION
NO. 3193/2026, DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SAID APPLICATION
(ANNEXURE-B), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY
AND ETC.
- 4 -
WP No. 25346 of 2026
C/W WP No. 27244 of 2026
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 28.09.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY , S.G.PANDIT J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
With the consent of learned counsel appearing for
the parties, both the writ petitions are heard together and
disposed of by this common order, since the issues raised
are common.
2. In W.P.No.25346/2026, a Panchayat
Development Officer (“PDO” for short) under suspension is
before this Court, questioning non-grant of stay of order of
suspension by order dated 21.07.2026 in Application
No.3209/2026 passed by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”).
3. In W.P.No.27244/2026, a Panchayat
Development Officer under suspension is before this Court,
- 5 -
WP No. 25346 of 2026
C/W WP No. 27244 of 2026
questioning non-grant of interim order of stay of
suspension order by order dated 05.08.2026 in Application
No.3193/2026 passed by the Tribunal.
4. In W.P.No.25346/2026, the petitioner is
working as PDO at Sinduvalli Grama Panchayat, Mysore
Taluk, Mysore District and he was kept under suspension
by order dated 10.07.2026 (Annexure-A6) passed by
respondent No.3-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat,
Mysore in exercise of power under Rule 10(1)(d) of
Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeals) Rules, 1957 (for short “CCA Rules”). Before
keeping the petitioner under suspension, a show-cause
notice dated 05.06.2026 was issued and the petitioner
submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice on
16.06.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner is kept under
suspension on the allegation that while awarding certain
works, the petitioner has not followed the provisions of the
Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999
and Rules made thereunder. The said order of suspension
was the subject matter of Application No.3209/2026
- 6 -
WP No. 25346 of 2026
C/W WP No. 27244 of 2026
before the Tribunal and the petitioner had also sought for
an interim order of stay of the order of suspension dated
10.07.2026. The Tribunal, under order dated 21.07.2026
rejected the interim prayer to stay the order of
suspension, observing that it would not find justifiable
grounds to stay the impugned order at that stage.
Questioning the said interim order rejecting the prayer of
the petitioner to stay the order of suspension, the
petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
5. In W.P.No.27244/2026, the petitioner is
working as PDO at Chennadevi Agrahara Grama
Panchayat, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural
District. The petitioner was issued with show-cause notice
dated 04.05.2026 calling upon him to submit his reply as
to why action should not be initiated against him. The
petitioner submitted his reply on 27.05.2026 (Annexure-
A4). Thereafter, under Annexure-A5 dated 02.07.2026,
the petitioner was kept under suspension by respondent
No.3/Chief Executive Officer and Disciplinary Authority of
Zilla Panchayat, Bangalore Rural District in exercise of
- 7 -
WP No. 25346 of 2026
C/W WP No. 27244 of 2026
power under Rule 10(d) of CCA Rules. Questioning the
said order of suspension, the petitioner was before the
Tribunal in Application No.3193/2026.
6. The petitioner also sought for interim stay of
the impugned order of suspension dated 02.07.2026. The
Tribunal under impugned order rejected the petitioner’s
interim prayer to stay the order of suspension observing
that it would not find any ground to grant the interim
order of stay of the impugned order. Questioning the
rejection of interim prayer to stay order of suspension, the
petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
7. Heard learned counsel Sri.A.Nagarajappa for
Sri.Naveen, learned counsel for petitioner in
W.P.No.25346/2026, learned counsel Sri.Aditya Chakragiri
for petitioner in W.P.No.27244/2026, learned Additional
Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob along with learned
High Court Government Pleader Sri.B.S.Sudhindra for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri.Pavan
Kumar.M.N., and learned counsel Sri.Bhaskar Gowda.M.H.,
- 8 -
WP No. 25346 of 2026
C/W WP No. 27244 of 2026
for respondent No.3 in both the writ petitions. Perused the
entire writ petition papers.
8. Learned counsel Sri.A.Nagarajappa and learned
counsel Sri.Aditya Chakragiri appearing for petitioners
would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the
prima facie case made out by the petitioners for grant of
interim stay of order of suspension. Further, learned
counsels would submit that there is no material evidence
as required under Rule 10(3) of CCA Rules, so as to keep
the petitioners under suspension. In addition to the above,
learned counsels would submit that the third respondent –
Chief Executive officer of the Zilla Panchayat has no
jurisdiction or competency to keep the petitioner i.e., PDO
under suspension. Learned counsels would invite attention
of this Court to the Government order dated 09.11.2022
and would submit that 1500 PDOs post is upgraded form
the pay scale of Rs.37900-70850 to that of Rs.40900-
78200, Group-B grade. Further, learned counsels would
submit by referring to Annexure-C in W.P.No.25346/2026,
notification dated 13.03.2024 that the post of Senior PDO
- 9 -
WP No. 25346 of 2026
C/W WP No. 27244 of 2026
is a promotional post to the cadre of PDO. It is also
submitted that, in terms of the said notification, the
appointing authority insofar as Senior PDO as well as PDO
is the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Commissionarate. As
such, learned counsel would contend that when the
appointing authority in relation to Senior PDOs and PDOs
is Commissioner for Panchayath Development, the CEO,
Zilla Panchayat – third respondent herein is incompetent
and the order passed keeping the petitioners under
suspension is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel would
further submit that though the petitioners are not
promoted as Senior PDOs, they are in the scale of
Rs.65950-124900 as well as Rs.61300-112900
respectively. It is submitted that those scales are in terms
of Rule 5 of CCA Rules are pay scales of Group-B posts. It
is contended that the third respondent – CEO, Zilla
Panchayat would not possess power to keep a Group-B
Officer under suspension and as such, they would pray for
an interim order as prayed before the Tribunal.
- 10 -
WP No. 25346 of 2026
C/W WP No. 27244 of 2026
9. Learned Additional Advocate General
Sri.Reuben Jacob would not dispute the creation of Senior
PDO as well as prescribing Commissioner, Panchayat Raj
as the Appointing Authority in relation to PDO and senior
PDO. However, he submits that the CEO is conferred with
power to take disciplinary proceedings and to impose
penalties in terms of Rule 15(2-A) of the CCA Rules.
Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that
though Rule 15 deals with provisions regarding lent
officers, Sub-Rule (2-A) starts with non-abstante clause
empowering the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat
to act as appointing authority for placing such Government
servant under suspension and as Disciplinary Authority for
the purpose of taking disciplinary proceedings to impose
minor penalties under Rule 8 of CCA Rules. Thus, he would
pray for dismissal of the writ petitions.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 in both
the writ petitions – Zilla Panchayat would submit that the
petitioners are kept under suspension on examining the
material and having found prima-facie material for keeping
- 11 -
WP No. 25346 of 2026
C/W WP No. 27244 of 2026
the petitioners under suspension. Learned counsel for
respondent No.3 in both the writ petitions would submit
that the respondent – Zilla Panchayat would file statement
before the Tribunal and the Tribunal may be directed to
hear the parties and decide the main Application itself.
Thus, they would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions.
11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition
papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
interim order passed by the Tribunal rejecting prayer of
the petitioners to stay the impugned orders of suspension
for the following reasons:
It is to be noted that the suspension is not a
punishment and a Government servant is kept under
suspension only to keep the said Government servant out
of mischief zone, so as to collect the material by the
Disciplinary Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings
against such Government servant. A perusal of the
impugned order of suspension in both the writ petitions, it
is seen that the third respondent in exercise of its power
- 12 -
WP No. 25346 of 2026
C/W WP No. 27244 of 2026
under Rule 10(1)(d) of CCA Rules, kept the petitioners
under suspension pending departmental enquiry against
the petitioners. Whether the allegations contained in the
order of suspension warranted suspension or not is a
matter to be decided by the Tribunal on looking into the
materials to be placed by both the parties and it is not for
this Court at this stage to give a finding as to whether the
allegations warranted suspension or not.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended
that in view of Government order dated 15.07.2023
prescribing the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and CEO,
Zilla Panchayat as empowered authority to keep the
Senior PDO and PDO respectively under suspension and
notification dated 13.03.2024 amending II Schedule to the
CCA Rules prescribing the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj
as Appointing Authority in respect of Senior PDO and PDO,
the respondent No.3 – CEO, Zilla Panchayat has no
jurisdiction to keep the petitioners under suspension.
There is no dispute with regard to amendment and
prescribing the Commissioner as Appointing Authority
- 13 -
WP No. 25346 of 2026
C/W WP No. 27244 of 2026
insofar as Senior PDO and PDO. It is also not in dispute
that, under Executive Order dated 15.07.2023, the
Government prescribed Commissioner insofar as Senior
PDO and CEO in respect of PDO as the authority
empowered to suspend. The Executive Order could only
supplement the Rules already in place or Rules which is in
occupation. The Executive Order cannot run counter or
contrary to the existing Rules.
13. Rule 15 of CCA Rules relates to provisions
regarding Lent Officers from one department to another
department or one authority to another authority or local
authority. Rule 15(2-A) of CCA Rules reads as under:
“(2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in
these rules, -
(i) Government in Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj Department in respect of
Government servant holding a Group A or B
post whose services are lent to the Zilla
Panchayat or Taluk Panchayat by an order
issued by the Government in Rural
Development and Panchayath Raj Department
- 14 -
WP No. 25346 of 2026
C/W WP No. 27244 of 2026
under section 155 or 196 of the Karnataka
Panchayat Raj Act, 1993;
(ii) the Chief Executive officer of the Zilla
Panchayat in respect of. -
(a) a Government servant holding a
Group B post excluding the
Government servant referred in
clause (i) or a Group C or Group D
post whose services are lent to the
Zilla Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat or
Grama Panchayat.
(b) any doctor working in a Primary
Health Centre who is a member of the
Karnataka Directorate of Health and
Family Welfare Service;
shall have the powers of the Appointing Authority
for placing such Government servant under
suspension and of the Disciplinary Authority for the
purpose of taking a disciplinary proceedings against
him and to impose any of penalties specified in
clauses (i) to (iv-a) of rule 8 on such Government
servant. It shall not be necessary for the
Government in Rural Development and Panchayat
Raj Department or the Chief Executive Officer of
the Zilla Panchayat to get the approval of or to
consult the lending authority or the appointing
authority as the case may be before placing such
Government servant under suspension or imposing
on him any of the said penalties.”
- 15 -
WP No. 25346 of 2026
C/W WP No. 27244 of 2026
14. The above said Sub-Rule is inserted by
substitution by notification dated 07.03.2002 which has
come into effect from 20.03.2002. Sub-Rule (2-A) (ii)(a)
makes it clear that a Government servant holding a
Group-B post excluding the Government servants
mentioned at Clause (i) or Group-C or Group-D post,
whose services are lent to the Zilla Panchayat, Taluk
Panchayat or Gram Panchayat, the CEO shall have the
powers of appointing authority for placing such
Government servant under suspension and Disciplinary
Authority for the purpose of taking disciplinary
proceedings for imposing minor penalties. Sub-Rule (2-A)
starts with non-abstante clause. Therefore,
notwithstanding anything contained in the CCA Rules, CEO
Zilla Panchayat would possess power to keep a Group-B
Officer under suspension and he would also possess or
empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings for
imposing minor penalties.
- 16 -
WP No. 25346 of 2026
C/W WP No. 27244 of 2026
15. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find
any merit in the writ petitions and accordingly writ
petitions stand rejected .
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
MPK/NC
CT:bms