SHANKAR YAMANAPPA TALAWAR vs THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
R
TH
DATED THIS THE 10 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.101210 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHANKAR YAMANAPPA TALAWAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: SERVICE
R/O H.NO.87/F. YS COLONY
PURANDARA EXTENSION
DHARWAD – 580 004.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHREEVATSA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
EXECUTIVE MEMBER
TH
KIADB, CENTRAL OFFICE 4 FLOOR
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 01.
2 . THE SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION)
TH TH
KIADB, 4 AND 5 FLOOR
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU – 01.
3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE SECRETARY
2
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
ND
2 FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU – 01.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ V.SABARAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W.,
SRI SHASHANK S.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO REVOKE THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED
19-12-2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-E REINSTATE HIM.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by
issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to
revoke his suspension and grant all consequential benefits.
2. Heard Sri Shreevatsa Hegde, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri Basavaraj V.Sabarad, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondents.
3
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
3.1. The petitioner joins the service of the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Board’ for short) as a Stenographer on 11-03-2003. He is
subsequently promoted and at the relevant point in time was
working as a Senior Assistant at the office of the Board at Dharwad
Division. The petitioner was transferred on 13-12-2022 to the office
of the Executive Engineer, Davangere Zonal Office. The petitioner
when he moves to report for duty at Davangere, suffers a cardiac
arrest and was operated upon at SDM Narayana Heart Centre.
3.2. The petitioner then on 19-12-2022 comes to be placed
under suspension on several allegations of financial irregularities
committed along with other officials, in the capacity of being a
Senior Assistant with regard to payment of compensation to
particular land losers amounting to ₹20/- crores. The charge sheet
was not issued against him, as the suspension was in contemplation
of disciplinary proceedings. Since no charge sheet was issued
against him despite passage of 6 months, the petitioner submits a
representation in the month of June 2023, seeking revocation of
4
suspension on the aforesaid score of non-issuance of charge sheet
against him and commencement of departmental enquiry in terms
of Rule 10(5)(b) of the of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (‘the Rules’ for
short). In the interregnum, the CID of Dharwad Unit had also
registered an FIR in Crime No.2451 of 2022 against the petitioner
and other officials working in the Board. Sanction was also sought
for prosecution of the petitioner and accordingly, charge sheet in
C.C.No.1072 of 2023 was filed before the III Additional Senior Civil
Judge and CJM, Dharwad by the CID.
3.3. The petitioner also brought to the notice of the
Competent Authority that suspension order is deemed to have been
revoked in terms of the said Rule. The petitioner was also extended
the benefit of subsistence allowance long after placing the petitioner
was under suspension. Two years pass by. No charge sheet is
issued and the petitioner was continued under suspension. It is
then he approaches this Court in the subject petition seeking a
direction of revocation of suspension. After filing of the present
petition, the Board initiated a departmental enquiry against the
5
petitioner and issued a show cause notice-cum-charge sheet
against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner had a role to play
in the payment of ₹80,04,166/- compensation to one Smt. Yallavva
and Smt. Shantavva Rudrappa in respect of land in
Sy.No.198/2A/3, Dharwad and causing loss to Government. This is
the first time the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet after
having been placed under suspension three years ago. On the said
score of the petitioner continuing under suspension, the subject
petition is filed seeking the aforesaid prayer.
SUBMISSIONS:
PETITIONER:
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that under Rule 10 of the Rules, continuation
of suspension without adherence to Rule 10(5) is itself illegal. There
is no departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner by
issuing a charge sheet for more than two years. There are no
allegations against the petitioner made even in the charge sheet.
They are all vague with regard to payment of compensation. The
6
petitioner is not the Competent Authority to pay any compensation.
The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance upon
plethora of judgments of the Apex Court and that of Division
Benches and coordinate Bench of this Court to buttress his
submission with regard to right of revocation of suspension. The
learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner was
placed under suspension for a reason different from the one
disciplinary proceedings are now initiated. No documents that are
necessary to be furnished along with the charge sheet are even
furnished to the petitioner. Once notice is issued from the hands of
this Court, it is only then the charge sheet is issued against the
petitioner. On all the aforesaid scores, the learned counsel seeks
revocation of the order of suspension.
BOARD:
5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel representing the
Board would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that
amended Rule 10 is indicative that only if enquiry is not
commenced against the delinquent Government servant, it comes
into operation. The Board had initiated departmental enquiry and
7
the Crime Investigation Department also had filed a charge sheet in
the criminal case. The action of the petitioner amounts to gross
misconduct and irregularities that are committed causing loss to the
Board. The learned senior counsel would submit that the Competent
Authority to accord sanction for the purpose of placing the
petitioner under suspension was the CEO and Executive Member
and the petitioner is not an employee who was on deputation. He
also places reliance upon certain judgments which deal with
suspension of an employee. The learned senior counsel submits
that if the petitioner is reinstated, there is every likelihood of
tampering of documents and influencing the ongoing enquiry or the
criminal investigations. Therefore, the petition must be dismissed.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
CONSIDERATION:
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The entry of
the petitioner into the services of the Board is a matter of record.
8
He is promoted as a Senior Assistant on 17-08-2019. The petitioner
is then transferred to the office of the Executive Engineer,
Davangere Zonal Office of the Board. Pursuant to the order of
transfer, the petitioner is relieved from the services at Dharwad and
was directed to report at Davangere. The relieving order reads as
follows:
| “ಕ. | ಸಂ: ಕೈಪಮಂ/ಭೂಾ/ಾ/1028/2022-23 ಾಂಕ:13-12-2022. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -:: ಡುಗೆ ಆ ೇಶ ::- | |||||
| ಷಯ : "ಾನ$ ಮುಖ$ ಾಯ&'ವ&ಹ*ಾ+ಾ,ಗಳ. /ಾಗೂ ಾಯ& '0ಾ&ಹಕ | |||||
| ಸದಸ$ರು, ಕ.ೈ.3ರ.ಅ.ಮಂ., 5ೆಂಗಳ6ರು ಇವರ ಆ ೇಶದ 8ೕ9ೆ:ೆ | |||||
| ;ೕ.ಶಂಕರ 0ೈ. ತಳ0ಾರ =,ಯ ಸ/ಾಯಕರು, >ೇಷ | |||||
| ಭೂಾ+ೕಾ+ಾ,ಗಳ ಾ?ಾ&ಲಯ, ೆಐಎC, ಾರ0ಾಡ | |||||
| ಇವರನುD ಈ ಾ?ಾ&ಲಯಂದ ಡುಗೆ:ೊFಸುವ ಕು,ತು. | |||||
| ಉHೆIೕಖ : "ಾನ$ ಮುಖ$ ಾಯ&'ವ&ಹ*ಾ+ಾ,ಗಳ. /ಾಗೂ ಾಯ& | |||||
| '0ಾ&ಹಕ ಸದಸ$ರು, ಕ.ೈ.ಪ.ಅ.ಮಂ., 5ೆಂಗಳ6ರು ಇವರ ಆ ೇಶದ | |||||
| ಸಂJೆ$:ಕೈಪಅಮಂ/ೇಂಕ/ಆಡFತ-1046(10/13384)/2022-23 | |||||
| ಾಂಕ:29-10-2022. | |||||
| ******* | |||||
| 8ೕಲKಂಡ ಷಯೆK /ಾಗೂ ಉHೆIೕಖನೆK ಸಂಬಂ+MದಂNೆ, ;ೕ.ಶಂಕರ 0ೈ. ತಳ0ಾರ, =,ಯ | |||||
| ಸ/ಾಯಕರು, >ೇಷ ಭೂಾ+ೕಾ+ಾ,ಗಳ ಾ?ಾ&ಲಯ, ೆಐಎC, ಾರ0ಾಡ ಇವರನುD ತOಣಂದ | |||||
| ಅನಯ0ಾಗುವಂNೆ /ಾಗೂ ಮುಂನ ಆ ೇಶದವ9ೆಗೂ ಾಯ&Qಾಲಕ ಅRಯಂತರರ ಕSೇ,, ೆಐಎC, ಾವಣ:ೆ9ೆ | |||||
| ವಲಯ ಕSೇ,, ಾವಣ:ೆ9ೆ ಇTI:ೆ ಉHೆIೕUತ ಪತದನಯ ವ:ಾ&ವ*ೆ:ೊFM ಆ ೇ;ಸHಾV ೆ. | |||||
| "ಾನ$ರ ಆ ೇಶದಂNೆ ;ೕ.ಶಂಕರ 0ೈ. ತಳ0ಾರ, =,ಯ ಸ/ಾಯಕರು, >ೇಷ ಭೂಾ+ೕಾ+ಾ,ಗಳ | |||||
| ಾ?ಾ&ಲಯ, ೆಐಎC, ಾರ0ಾಡ ಇವರನುD ಾಂಕ:13-12-2022 ರಂದು ಅಪ9ಾಹD ಈ ಕSೇ,Wಂದ |
9
| ಡುಗೆ:ೊFM, ಾಯ&Qಾಲಕ ಅRಯಂತರರ ಕSೇ,, ೆಐಎC, ಾವಣ:ೆ9ೆ ಇವರ ಕSೇ,:ೆ /ಾಜ9ಾಗಲು ಈ | |
|---|---|
| ಮೂಲಕ ಆ ೇ;M ೆ. | |
| ಸ=/- | |
| >ೇಷ ಭೂಾ+ೕಾ+ಾ,ಗಳ., | |
| ಕಾ&ಟಕ ೈ:ಾ,ಾ ಪ ೇ>ಾRವೃ [ಮಂಡF, | |
| ಾರ0ಾಡ.” |
The petitioner, as narrated hereinabove, suffers cardiac arrest and
is treated at SDM Narayana Heart Centre which disabled him from
reporting for duty immediately. The petitioner then is placed under
suspension, not for delayed reporting to duties, but on certain
irregularities allegedly committed during his tenure at Dharwad.
The order of suspension reads as follows:
| “ಮುಖ$ ಾಯ&'0ಾ&ಹ*ಾ+ಾ, /ಾಗೂ ಾಯ&'0ಾ&ಹಕ ಸದಸ$ರು, ಕಾ&ಟಕ ೈ:ಾ,ಾ | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ಪ ೇ>ಾRವೃ [ಮಂಡF, 5ೆಂಗಳ6ರು ಇವರ ನಡವFಗಳ. | |||
| ಷಯ : ;ೕ. ಶಂಕ\ 0ೈ ತಳ0ಾ\, =,ಯ ಸ/ಾಯಕ. >ೇಷ<br>ಭೂಾೕಾ+ಾ,ಗಳ ]ಾಗ. ೆಐಎC. ವಲಯ ಕSೇ,.<br>ಾವಣ:ೆ9ೆ ಇವರನುD ಕತ&ವ$ Hೋಪ ಆ9ೋಪದC ಅ"ಾನತು ^<br>"ಾಡುವ ಬ:ೆ_<br>©.JA.L.¹.¦<br>ಉHೆIೕಖ : 1. >ೇಷ `HಾI+ಾ,. ೆಐಎC ( ), 5ೆಂಗಳ6ರು ಇವರ<br>ೇತೃತದTI ರbಸHಾದ ತಂಡವc ಾಂಕ :14-12-2022 ರಂದು<br>'ೕಡHಾದ ತ'Jಾ ವರ.<br>©.JA.L.¹.¦<br>2. >ೇಷ `HಾI+ಾ,, ೆಐಎC ( ), 5ೆಂಗಳ6ರು ಇವರ<br>ಾಂಕ: 19-12-2022 ರ ಮುಂದುವ9ೆದ ತ'Jಾ ವರ. | ಷಯ : ;ೕ. ಶಂಕ\ 0ೈ ತಳ0ಾ\, =,ಯ ಸ/ಾಯಕ. >ೇಷ | ||
| ಭೂಾೕಾ+ಾ,ಗಳ ]ಾಗ. ೆಐಎC. ವಲಯ ಕSೇ,. | |||
| ಾವಣ:ೆ9ೆ ಇವರನುD ಕತ&ವ$ Hೋಪ ಆ9ೋಪದC ಅ"ಾನತು ^ | |||
| "ಾಡುವ ಬ:ೆ_ | |||
| ©.JA.L.¹.¦<br>ಉHೆIೕಖ : 1. >ೇಷ `HಾI+ಾ,. ೆಐಎC ( ), 5ೆಂಗಳ6ರು ಇವರ | |||
| ೇತೃತದTI ರbಸHಾದ ತಂಡವc ಾಂಕ :14-12-2022 ರಂದು | |||
| 'ೕಡHಾದ ತ'Jಾ ವರ. | |||
| ©.JA.L.¹.¦<br>2. >ೇಷ `HಾI+ಾ,, ೆಐಎC ( ), 5ೆಂಗಳ6ರು ಇವರ | |||
| ಾಂಕ: 19-12-2022 ರ ಮುಂದುವ9ೆದ ತ'Jಾ ವರ. | |||
10
| ಪಾ^ವೆ :- | |
| ;ೕ. .C.ಸಜfg ಇವರು >ೇಷ ಭೂಾ+ೕಾ+ಾ,, ೆಐಎC, ವಲಯ ಕSೇ,, | |
| ಾರ0ಾಡ ಇTI ಕತ&ವ$ 'ವ&=Mದh ಅವ+ಯTI ಪ,/ಾರ Qಾವi "ಾCರುವ ಕು,ತು ಆVಂ ಾ:ೆ_ | |
| ಾವ&ಜ'ಕ,ಂದ ಾಕಷುj ದೂರುಗಳ. Mೕಕೃತ0ಾVದh =ೆDHೆಯTI, ಸದ, ಎHಾI ಪಕರಣಗಳTI ಈ | |
| ೆಳಕಂಡ ಷಯಗಳ ಬ:ೆ_ ಸಮಗ0ಾV ಪ,;ೕಲೆ/ತ'Jೆ ನೆಸುವ ಸಲು0ಾV ತಂಡವನುD | |
| ರbಸHಾVತು^. | |
| 1. ಭೂಾ+ೕನಪCಸದ ಜkೕನುಗF:ೆ ಪ,/ಾರ Qಾವi "ಾCರುವ ಪಕರಣಗಳ.. | |
| 2. ಒಂ ೇ ಜkೕ':ೆ ಎರಡು 5ಾ, ಭೂಪ,/ಾರವನುD Qಾವi "ಾCರುವ ಪಕರಣಗಳ.. | |
| 3. 'ಗ+ತ ಭೂಪ,/ಾರmKಂತ /ೆಚುoವ, ಭೂಪ,/ಾರ Qಾವi "ಾCರುವ ಪಕರಣಗಳ.. | |
| 4. ಅ+ಸೂbತ JಾNೆ ಾರರ ಬದHಾV ಇತರ,:ೆ ಪ,/ಾರ Qಾವi "ಾCರುವ ಪಕರಣಗಳ.. | |
| 5. ಅಗತ$ ಾಖHಾi ಮತು^ 'ಯಮಗಳನುD QಾTಸ ೇ ಭೂಪ,/ಾರ Qಾವi "ಾCರುವ ಪಕರಣಗಳ.. | |
| ಸದ, ತಂಡವc ಉHೆIೕUತ ಪತದನಯ ತ'Jಾ ವರಯನುD ಸTIMದು.h ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ | |
| ಅ+ಾ,/MಬpಂಗಳನುD ಒಳ:ೊಂಡಂNೆ >ೇಷ ಭೂಾ+ೕಾ+ಾ,. ೆಐಎC ವಲಯ ಕSೇ,. | |
| ಾರ0ಾಡ 0ಾ$q^ಯ ಮkrಗsj, ೆಳ:ೇ,, ೋಟೂರು /ಾಗೂ ಇತ9ೆ :ಾಮಗಳ ಭೂಾ+ೕನ | |
| ಪmt:ೆ ಸಂಬಂ+MದಂNೆ. ಭೂಪ,/ಾರ QಾವiಸುವTI 'ಯ"ಾನುಾರ ಕಮವನುD ವ=ಸ ೇ. | |
| ಕತ&ವ$ Hೋಪ ಮತು^ ಮಂಡF:ೆ ರೂ. 19,99,55,000/- ಗಳ ಆu&ಕ ನಷj ಉಂಟು "ಾCರುವc ಾV | |
| ವರಯTI iFMರುNಾ^9ೆ. | |
| 1) ;ೕ. .C.ಸಜfg, >ೇಷ ಭೂಾ+ೕಾ+ಾ, ('ವೃತ)^ , ೆಐಎC, ವಲಯ ಕSೇ,, ಾರ0ಾಡ. | |
| 2) ;ೕ. ಎಂ. ೆ. ;ಂq ವ$ವಾvಪಕರು, >ೇಷ ಭೂಾ+ೕಾ+ಾ,ಗಳ ]ಾಗ, ೆಐಎC, ವಲಯ | |
| ಕSೇ,, ಾರ0ಾಡ. | |
| 3) ;ೕ. ಶಂಕ\ 0ೈ ತಳ0ಾ\, =,ಯ ಸ/ಾಯಕ, >ೇಷ ಭೂಾ+ೕಾ+ಾ,ಗಳ ]ಾಗ, | |
| ೆಐಎC, ವಲಯ ಕSೇ,, ಾವಣ:ೆ9ೆ. | |
| 4) ;ೕ. /ೇಮಚಂದ ಬ. bಂNಾಮw, 'ವೃತ ^;ರೆ^ ಾ\, >ೇಷ ಭೂಾ+ೕಾ+ಾ,ಗಳ ]ಾಗ, | |
| ೆಐಎC, ವಲಯ ಕSೇ,, ಾರ0ಾಡ. | |
| ಅದರಂNೆ, ೆಳಕಂಡ ಆ ೇಶ /ೊರCM ೆ: | |
11
| :: : : ಆ ೇಶ : : | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ಸಂJೆ$ | : ಕ.ೈ.ಪ.ಮಂ/ ೇಂ.ಕ/ಭೂ.ಾ-1972-8/16063/2022-23 ಾಂಕ: 19-12-2022 | ||
| ;ೕ. ಶಂಕ\ 0ೈ ತಳ0ಾ\, =,ಯ ಸ/ಾಯಕ, >ೇಷ ಭೂಾ+ೕಾ+ಾ,ಗಳ ]ಾಗ, | |||
| ೆಐಎC. ವಲಯ ಕSೇ,, ಾವಣ:ೆ9ೆ ಇವರು ಈ =ಂ ೆ >ೇಷ ಭೂಾ+ೕಾ+ಾ,ಗಳ ]ಾಗ. | |||
| ೆಐಎC, ವಲಯ ಕSೇ,, ಾರ0ಾಡ ಇTI ಕತ&ವ$ 'ವ&=ಸುi^ದ h ಅವ+ಯTI ಕತ&ವ$ Hೋಪ ಎಸV | |||
| ಮಂಡF:ೆ ಆu&ಕ ನಷj ಉಂಟು"ಾCರುವ =ೆDHೆಯTI, ಸದ,ಯವರನುD ಕಾ&ಟಕ ೈ:ಾ,ಾ | |||
| ಪ ೇ>ಾRವೃ [ ಮಂಡFಯ ೇ0ಾ 'ಯ"ಾವFಗಳ ಅಾ$ಯ (8), 'ಯಮ 62 ಮತು^ 63 ರC | |||
| ಪNಾ$yೕ`ಸHಾದ ಪದತ^0ಾದ ಅ+ಾರವನುD ಚHಾWM, ಕಾ&ಟಕ ಾಗ,ೕಕ ೇ0ಾ | |||
| 'ಯ"ಾವF (ವVೕ&ಕರಣ, 'ಯಂತಣ ಮತು^ 8ೕಲrನ ) 1957 ರ 'ಯಮ 10 (C) ರನಯ | |||
| ಇHಾJಾ zಾರ*ೆಯನುD 5ಾmW,M, ತOಣಂದ ಅನಯ0ಾಗುವಂNೆ ಮುಂನ ಆ ೇಶದವ9ೆ ಗೂ | |||
| ಅ"ಾನi^ನTI,M, ಆ ೇ;M ೆ. | |||
| ;ೕ. ಶಂಕ\ 0ೈ ತಳ0ಾ\, =,ಯ ಸ/ಾಯಕ, >ೇಷ ಭೂಾ+ೕಾ+ಾ,ಗಳ ]ಾಗ, | |||
| ೆಐಎC ವಲಯ ಕSೇ,, ಾವಣ:ೆ9ೆ ಇವರು ಅ"ಾನತು^ ಅವ+ಯTI ಕಾ&ಟಕ ಾಗ,ೕಕ ೇ0ಾ | |||
| 'ಯ"ಾವF 1957 ರTI 'ಗಪCMರುವಂNೆ, `ೕವಾಾರ ಭNೆ$ಯನುD ಪೆಯಲು | |||
| ಅಹ&9ಾVರುNಾ^9ೆ.” | |||
The order places the petitioner under suspension under Rule 10, in
contemplation of disciplinary proceedings due to prima facie
evidence of gross dereliction of duty against him, as obtaining
under Rule 10(d) of the Rules. The order of suspension is passed on
19-12-2022.
8. The suspension of employees of the Board is regulated by
the adoption of the Rules. The Rules undergo an amendment in the
12
year 2020. Rule 10(5) of the Rules is substituted in terms of a
Notification dated 29-10-2020. The Notification reads as follows:
“ DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORMS
NOTIFICATION
No: DPAR 28 SDE 2018 Bengaluru, Dated: 29.10.2020.
Whereas the draft of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) (Amendment) Rules, 2020
which the Government of Karnataka proposes to make in
exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 read with section 8
of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act
14 of 1990) was published as required by clause (a) of sub-
section (2) of section 3 of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act,
1978 in Notification No. DPAR 28 SDE 2018, in part IVA (PR No.
nd
159) of the Karnataka Gazette dated 02 May 2020 inviting
objections and suggestions from all persons likely to be affected
thereby within fifteen days from the date of its publication in the
Official Gazette.
Whereas, the said Gazette was made available to the
nd
public on 02 May 2020.
And Whereas objections and suggestions received in this
behalf have been considered by the Government.
Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub
section (1) of section 3 read with section 8 of the Karnataka
State Civil Services Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1990) the
Government of Karnataka hereby makes the following rules.
RULES
1. Title and Commencement ,- (1) These rules may be called
the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
(Amendment) Rules, 2020.
(2) They shall come into force from the date of their
publication in the Official Gazette.
13
2. Amendment of rule 10 ,- (1) In rule 10 of the said rules,-
(i) for sub-rule (5), the following shall be substituted, namely,-
“(5) (a) Subject to sub-rule (3), where a competent
authority in an organization authorised to investigate
cases against Government servants under the provisions
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act No.
49 of 1988) or the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984
(Karnataka Act 4 of 1985) finds during investigation that
there is a prima facie evidence against a Government
servant and recommends that he may be placed under
suspension, the authority competent to place such a
Government servant under suspension may place him
under suspension.”
(b) If departmental inquiry is not commenced against the
delinquent Government Servant or charge sheet is not
filed in the court within a period of six months from
suspension, the competent authority shall decide whether
to revoke or continue suspension of such Government
Servant and unless decided and ordered for continuation
within this period, the suspension shall be deemed to have
been revoked i.e. from the date of completion of a period
of six months from the date of suspension. Upon such
revocation of the order of his suspension, it shall be the
duty of the Government servant to immediately seek order
of posting from the appointing authority, failing which he
shall be deemed to be on unauthorised absence with
effect from the date of revocation of the order of his
suspension.
Provided that the authority competent to place a
Government servant under suspension may extend the period of
suspension beyond the period specified in this clause, only after
consulting, within the said period, with the authority referred in
clause (a) only if such authority recommends extension within
the said period. Otherwise, the order placing the Government
servant under suspension shall stand revoked automatically
under this clause.
(ii) Sub-rule (6) shall be omitted.
14
Note: on revocation of suspension, the Government
servant shall not be posted to the same place/post from which
he was suspended.
By order and in the name of
Governor of Karnataka.
Sd/-
(CHANDRAHAS G. TALUKAR)
Deputy Secretary to Government
Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms
(Service Rules-2)”
(Emphasis supplied)
Rule 10 of the Rules, now reads as follows:
“10. Suspension, -
(1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it
is sub-ordinate or any other authority empowered by the
Government in this behalf may place a Government
servant under suspension.
(a) Where there is prima facie evidence to show
that he was caught red handed while accepting
gratification other than legal remuneration by the
persons authorized to investigate under the provisions
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under
any other law;
(aa) Where there is prima facie evidence to
show that he was found in possession or had at any
time during the discharge of his official duty been in
possession of pecuniary resources or property
disproportionate to known source of income, by the
persons authorized to investigate offences under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under any other
law.
15
(b) Where a charge sheet is filed before
competent court against him for any offence involving
moral turpitude committed in the course of his duty;
or
(c) Where a charge sheet is filed before the
competent court against him on charges of corruption,
embezzlement or criminal misappropriation of
Government money;
(d) Where there is prima facie evidence of
gross dereliction of duty against him.
“Provided that, where the order of suspension is made by an
authority empowered by Government in this behalf which is
lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall
forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in
which the order was made.
(2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed
under suspension by an order of appointing authority –
(a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is
detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or
otherwise for a period exceeding forty-eight hours;
(b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if in the
event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to
a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eighthours
and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or
compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction.
Explanation, - The period of forty-eight hours referred to in
clause (b) of these sub-rule shall be computed from the
commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and for
this purpose, intermittent periods of imprisonment if any, shall
be taken into account.
(3) The authority competent to place a Government
servant under suspension shall examine the relevant
material relating to the case and consider whether there
is prima facie evidence to support the charges made
against the Government servant and if it is satisfied on
16
such examination that prima facie evidence exists, it may
place the Government servant concerned under
suspension.
(4) xxx
(5) (a) Subject to sub-rule (3), where a competent authority in
an organization authorized to investigate cases against
Government servants under the provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act No.49 of 1988) or the
Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (Karnataka Act 4 of 1985) finds
during investigation that there is a prima facie evidence against
a Government servant and recommends that he may be placed
under suspension, the authority competent to place such a
Government servant under suspension may place him under
suspension.
(b) If departmental inquiry is not commenced
against the delinquent Government Servant or charge
sheet is not filed in the court within a period of six
months from suspension, the competent authority shall
decide whether to revoke or continue suspension of such
Government Servant and unless decided and ordered for
continuation within this period, the suspension shall be
deemed to have been revoked i.e., from the date of
completion of a period of six months from the date of
suspension. Upon such revocation of the order of his
suspension, it shall be the duty of the Government
servant to immediately seek order of posting from the
Appointing Authority, failing which he shall be deemed to
be on unauthorized absence with effect from the date of
revocation of the order of his suspension.
Provided that authority competent to place a Government
Servant under Suspension may extend the period of
suspension beyond the period specified in this clause,
only after consulting, within the said period, with the
authority referred in clause (a) only if such authority
recommends extension within the said period. otherwise,
the order placing the Government Servant under
suspension shall stand revoked automatically under this
clause.
17
(6) xxx
Note: on revocation of suspension, the Government Servant
shall not be posted to the same place/post from which he was
suspended
(7) xxx
…… …… ……”
(Emphasis supplied)
Sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 comes to be amended by introducing
a deeming clause. The amendment, imbued with both
procedural clarity and substantive rigour, introduced a
deeming provision of considerable consequence. It ordained
that, where within a span of 6 months from the date of
suspension, no departmental enquiry is initiated, signified by
issuance of a charge sheet or in criminal cases no charge
sheet is laid before the Court, the Competent Authority is
duty bound to deliberate upon the continuation or revocation
of such suspension. In the absence of an express order,
extending the suspension within this stipulated period, the
suspension shall, by operation of law, stand automatically
revoked upon completion of 6 months. Upon such revocation, a
corresponding obligation arises upon the Government servant to
18
promptly seek an order of posting from the appointing authority.
Failure to do so, invites the consequence of being treated as being
on unauthorized absence from the date of revocation. The Rule
further carries an instructive note mandating that upon revocation,
the employee shall not be reinstated to the very post or station
from which he was originally suspended.
9. From the language of the amended provision, a
principle emerges with unmistakable clarity, the continuance
of suspension beyond 6 months is not to be presumed or
prolonged by inertia. It demands an active, reasoned
decision by the Competent Authority. In its absence, the law
itself intervenes, dissolving the suspension and resorting to
albeit
the employee’s right to reinstatement, , at a different
posting. It is the aforesaid Rule that governs the issue in the lis .
10. Turning to the facts at hand, the petitioner is placed
under suspension on 19-12-2022 thereby, setting the six months
period to culminate on 18-06-2023. The petitioner, mindful of his
rights under the amended Rule, submitted a representation seeking
19
revocation of his suspension. The representation goes unheeded.
The petitioner then is said to have represented for payment of
subsistence allowance, that again is paid only after one year of
placing the petitioner under suspension. Time, relentless in its
passage, bore witness to two full years elapsing without any
decisive action, neither was the suspension revoked nor was a
departmental enquiry commenced against the petitioner.
11. It is well settled in law that a departmental enquiry
can be said to commence only upon issuance of a charge
sheet, not by a mere act of suspension or issuance of a show
cause notice. Confronted with this inaction, the petitioner
was compelled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on
06-02-2025, seeking a writ, in the nature of mandamus, to
bring an end to the suspension that had, by operation of law,
already outlived its legitimacy. This Court sought an explanation
from the hands of the Competent Authority as to why despite
passage of 30 months of placing the petitioner under suspension,
the suspension is not revoked. The order dated 18-02-2025 reads
as follows:
20
| “Learned counsel Sri.P.N.Hatti is directed to accept notice | ||
|---|---|---|
| for respondent Nos.1 and 2. |
| Petitioner to serve set of papers upon the aforesaid | ||
|---|---|---|
| counsel forthwith. |
| Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall explain as to why the | ||
|---|---|---|
| suspension the petitioner is not revoked, despite passage of | ||
| close to 30 months of placing the petitioner under suspension. |
Again on 31-10-2025, the matter is listed before this Bench and
this Court passed the following order:
“ ORAL ORDER
This Court on 18-02-2025 had passed the following order:
| Learned counsel Sri.P.N.Hatti is directed to accept | ||
|---|---|---|
| notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. |
| Learned HCGP is directed to accept notice for | ||
|---|---|---|
| respondent No.3. |
| Petitioner to serve set of papers upon the aforesaid | ||
|---|---|---|
| counsel forthwith. |
| Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall explain as to why the | ||
|---|---|---|
| suspension the petitioner is not revoked, despite passage of | ||
| close to 30 months of placing the petitioner under suspension. |
21
Learned counsel for the respondent now submits that he
is no longer in the panel and therefore, notice be issued.
Learned counsel submits that he has now been instructed to
appear in the matter. Therefore, the Secretary of the KIADB,
respondent No.2 shall be present before this court on 03-11-
2025 at 2.30 p.m. as there is no explanation coming about
pursuant to the orders of the Court dated 18-02-2025 even
after lapse of ten months.”
The Secretary of the Board was directed to be present, in the light
of no explanation for not revoking the suspension of the petitioner.
An affidavit is then preferred by the Board bringing in the entire
service of the petitioner, but falling short of any explanation as to
why the suspension of the petitioner was not revoked in terms of
Rule 10(5) quoted supra . What is projected is that the Police have
sought sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., to prosecute the
petitioner and other officials’ and investigation is still pending.
Therefore, the suspension of the petitioner is not revoked. The
affidavit glosses over the mandate of sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 of the
Rules.
12. Not for nothing, the Rule stood amended. The
amendment of the Rule comes in the light of the judgment of the
22
Apex Court in the case of AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY v. UNION
1
OF INDIA wherein the Apex Court had held as follows:
| “…. …. ….<br>11. Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of<br>charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and<br>must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate<br>period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning<br>contemporaneously available on the record, this would render it<br>punitive in nature. Departmental/disciplinary proceedings<br>invariably commence with delay, are plagued with<br>procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the<br>memorandum of charges, and eventually culminate after even<br>longer delay.<br>12. Protracted periods of suspension, repeated<br>renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and<br>not the exception that they ought to be. The suspended<br>person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn<br>of society and the derision of his department, has to<br>endure this excruciation even before he is formally<br>charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or<br>offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when<br>charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the<br>inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is,<br>to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often<br>this has now become an accompaniment to retirement.<br>Indubitably, the sophist will nimbly counter that our<br>Constitution does not explicitly guarantee either the right<br>to a speedy trial even to the incarcerated, or assume the<br>presumption of innocence to the accused. But we must<br>remember that both these factors are legal ground<br>norms, are inextricable tenets of Common Law<br>Jurisprudence, antedating even the Magna Carta of 1215,<br>which assures that — “We will sell to no man, we will not<br>deny or defer to any man either justice or right.” In<br>similar vein the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of<br>the United States of America guarantees that in all | “…. …. …. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 11. Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of | |||
| charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and | |||
| must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate | |||
| period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning | |||
| contemporaneously available on the record, this would render it | |||
| punitive in nature. Departmental/disciplinary proceedings | |||
| invariably commence with delay, are plagued with | |||
| procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the | |||
| memorandum of charges, and eventually culminate after even | |||
| longer delay. | |||
| 12. Protracted periods of suspension, repeated | |||
| renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and | |||
| not the exception that they ought to be. The suspended | |||
| person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn | |||
| of society and the derision of his department, has to | |||
| endure this excruciation even before he is formally | |||
| charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or | |||
| offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when | |||
| charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the | |||
| inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is, | |||
| to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often | |||
| this has now become an accompaniment to retirement. | |||
| Indubitably, the sophist will nimbly counter that our | |||
| Constitution does not explicitly guarantee either the right | |||
| to a speedy trial even to the incarcerated, or assume the | |||
| presumption of innocence to the accused. But we must | |||
| remember that both these factors are legal ground | |||
| norms, are inextricable tenets of Common Law | |||
| Jurisprudence, antedating even the Magna Carta of 1215, | |||
| which assures that — “We will sell to no man, we will not | |||
| deny or defer to any man either justice or right.” In | |||
| similar vein the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of | |||
| the United States of America guarantees that in all |
1
(2015) 7 SCC 291
23
| criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to | ||
|---|---|---|
| a speedy and public trial. | ||
| … … … | ||
| 21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a | ||
| suspension order should not extend beyond three months | ||
| if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge- | ||
| sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if | ||
| the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a | ||
| reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the | ||
| suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to | ||
| transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its | ||
| offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or | ||
| personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for | ||
| obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may | ||
| also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling | ||
| records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his | ||
| defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally | ||
| recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy | ||
| trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in | ||
| the prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution | ||
| Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the | ||
| grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. | ||
| However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension | ||
| has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be | ||
| contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of | ||
| the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal | ||
| investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in | ||
| abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us. | ||
| 22. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, | ||
| the appellant has now been served with a charge-sheet, and, | ||
| therefore, these directions may not be relevant to him any | ||
| longer. However, if the appellant is so advised he may challenge | ||
| his continued suspension in any manner known to law, and this | ||
| action of the respondents will be subject to judicial review.” | ||
delinquent employee within three months, from the date of placing
24
the said employee under suspension, the suspension order loses its
currency. The Rule stands amended in the light of the said
judgment. The Rule now stipulates 6 months’ time for issuance of
charge sheet against the delinquent employee particularly, when he
is placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental
enquiry. The mandate of the Rule is, deemed revocation of
suspension.
13. A Division Bench of this Court has interpreted Rule
10(5)(b) of the Rules, where the order of suspension is deemed to
have been revoked on expiry of six months. A Division Bench of this
2
Court in SHARANAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA has held as
follows:
“…… …… ……
7. The admitted facts being that the order of
suspension was passed on 19.01.2024. The writ petition
was filed against the order of the Tribunal calling in question the
correctness of the order of suspension on various grounds.
Further, the passage of time has resulted in the
requirement of taking note of the consequences of Rule
10 (5) (b) of the CCA Rules, as entering into the validity
of order of suspension appears now to be an academic
exercise.
8. Rule 10(5) (b) reads as hereunder:
2
W.P.No.201054 of 2024 decided on 02-08-2024
25
“10. (5) (b) If departmental inquiry is not
commenced against the delinquent Government Servant
or charge-sheet is not filed in the court within a period
of six months from suspension, the Competent Authority
shall decide whether to revoke or continue suspension of
such Government Servant and unless decided and
ordered for continuation within this period, the
suspension shall be deemed to have been revoked i.e.,
from the date of completion of a period of six months
from the date of suspension. Upon such revocation of
the order of his suspension, it shall be the duty of the
Government servant to immediately seek order of
posting from the Appointing Authority, failing which he
shall be deemed to be on unauthorized absence with
effect from the date of revocation of the order of his
suspension:
Provided that the authority competent to place a
Government servant under suspension may extend the
period of suspension beyond the period specified in this
clause, only after consulting, within the said period, with
the authority referred in clause(a) only if such authority
recommends extension within the said period.
Otherwise, the order placing the Government servant
under suspension shall stand revoked automatically
under this clause.”
9. In light of the plain provision in Rule 10(5) (b) of
the CCA Rules, if within the period of six months from the
date of order of suspension if no order is passed
regarding continuance of such order of suspension, then
on the lapse of six months the said order of suspension
stands revoked and the petitioner may then seek for
posting by making out representation as mandated under
Rule 10(5) (b) of CCA Rules.
10. We are conscious of the fact that what was challenged
before the Tribunal was only the order of suspension, however,
in light of the subsequent events,the mandate of Rule 10
(5)(b) of the CCA Rules is required to be taken note of
and if that were to be so, in light of the discussion above,
the order of suspension is deemed to have been revoked
as on the expiry of six months.
26
11. In light of the discussion made above, the same
direction as made in W.P.No.201047/2024 is required to be
passed in the present matter also. The petitioner has made out
a representation on 24.06.2024 and in light of the period of six
months from 19.01.2024 having lapsed on 18.07.2024, there
would be deemed revocation of suspension from 18.07.2024.
Needless to state that it is in public interest that the employee
cannot be allowed to sit at home and accordingly the
representation of the petitioner referred to above to be
considered and appropriate orders be passed expeditiously, not
later than one month form the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order.”
14. Another Division Bench of this Court in K. PRASANTH v.
3
STATE OF KARNATAKA again interprets Rule 10(5)(b) and holds
that if departmental enquiry has not commenced within six months
from the date of suspension, the Government servant would be
entitled to the benefit of Rule 10(5)(b) of the Rules i.e., deemed
revocation. The Division Bench holds as follows:
“…… …… ……
3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that t he
petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated
21st November, 2023 as per Annexure-A10. It is further
submitted that in spite of passage of more than six months, no
Memo of Charges have been issued to the petitioner and the
order of suspension has also not been extended in the manner
known to law. It is therefore contended that since
Departmental Enquiry has not commenced within six
months from the date of suspension and since no
competent order has been passed continuing the
suspension beyond six months within a period of six
3
W.P.No.9134 of 2024 decided on 14-08-2024
27
months, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Rule
10(5)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short hereinafter
referred to as the "CCA Rules') and is liable to be
reinstated in service.
4. Learned Government Advocate, submits that on the
deemed revocation of suspension order also, the petitioner has
to report for duty and seek for posting, failing which, he will be
deemed to be on unauthorised absence.
5. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner
has made a representation dated 17th April, 2024 to the
respondent seeking posting orders, but no order has been
passed.
6. Having considered the contentions advanced by the
learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that, if,
as a matter of fact, the Departmental Enquiry has not
been commenced within six months from 21st November,
2023, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of
Rule 10(5)(b) of Rules. In the above circumstances,
there will a direction that in case the petitioner reports
before the respondent and seeks posting orders, the
request shall be considered and appropriate orders shall
be passed thereon in accordance with law. Needful shall be
done within a period of one week from the date on which the
petitioner reports and make a request, as observed above.”
15. Another Division Bench of this Court in JAGADEESHA
4
K.G. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA holds as follows:
“…… …… ……
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
regardless of legality of the order of the Tribunal, by virtue of
operation of Rule 10(5)(b) of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, the
suspension is deemed to have been revoked inasmuch as,
4
2025 SCC OnLine Kar 4131
28
neither there is an order extending the period of
suspension nor the Charge Memo has been registered to
his client.
3. Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned AGA appearing for the
official respondents vehemently opposes the petition making
submission in justification of the impugned order of the Tribunal
and the reasons on which it has been constructed. He submits
that putting an employee under suspension is prerogative of the
employer and that ordinarily writ Courts should not interfere in
such matters. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ
Petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant
indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with submission
made on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of the extant
rule, the subject suspension is deemed to have been
revoked and in terms of petitioner's representation dated
15.04.2025, he needs to be put back in the post/office for
functional purpose as before, there being neither
extension of suspension nor issuance of Charge Memo.
However, deemed revocation of suspension shall not interdict
the contemplated disciplinary enquiry, if any.”
16. A Coordinate Bench, again interpreting Rule 10(5)(b) of
the Rules, in K.R. SHIVAKUMAR v. MANAGING DIRECTOR AND
5
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY has held as follows:
“…… …… ……
3. Petitioner was kept under suspension vide order
dated 21.06.2023 as per Annexure-A. It is borne out
from the records that respondent having placed
petitioner under suspension have not initiated any
departmental enquiry. The suspension order therefore is
not sustainable in terms of sub-rule (5)(b) of Rule 10 of
5
2024 SCC OnLine Kar 9938
29
KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957. It would be useful for this Court to
reproduce the said Rule.
The same reads as under:
“10(5)(b): It departmental inquiry is not
commenced against the delinquent Government Servant
or Charge-sheet is not filed in the Court within a period
of six months from suspension, the Competent Authority
shall decide whether to revoke or continue suspension of
such Government Servant and unless decided and
ordered for continuation within this period, the
suspension shall be deemed to have been revoked i.e.,
from the date of completion of a period of six months
from the date of suspension. It shall be the duty of the
Government servant to immediately seek order of
posting from the Appointing Authority, failing which he
shall be deemed to be unauthorized absence with effect
from the date of revocation of the order of his
suspension:
Provided that the authority competent to place a
Government servant under suspension may extend the
period of suspension beyond the period specified in this
clause, only after consulting, within the said period, with
the authority referred in clause (a) only if such authority
recommends extension within the said period.
Otherwise, the order placing the Government servant
under suspension shall stand revoked automatically
under this clause.”
4. Admittedly, the respondent having placed
petitioner under suspension has not contemplated to
initiate any departmental enquiry. The above culled out
Rule clearly indicates that if departmental enquiry is not
commenced against the delinquent Government servant
or charge sheet is not filed in the Court within a period of
six months, the suspension will be deemed to have been
revoked from the date of completion of period of six
months from the date of suspension.
5. In terms of Rule 10(5)(b), the impugned
suspension shall be deemed to have been revoked and
therefore, the impugned order does not survive for
consideration .”
30
17. It becomes apposite to refer to the interpretation made
by the Apex Court with regard to, what would amount to a deemed
revocation in any legal parlance, particularly of suspension.
6
17.1. The Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA v. DIPAK MALI
has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
| 10. Having carefully considered the submissions made on | |
|---|---|
| behalf of the parties and having also considered the relevant | |
| dates relating to suspension of the respondent and when the | |
| petitioners' case came up for review on 20-10-2004, we are | |
| inclined to agree with the views expressed by the Central | |
| Administrative Tribunal, as confirmed by the High Court, that | |
| having regard to the amended provisions of sub-rules (6) | |
| and (7) of Rule 10, the review for modification or | |
| revocation of the order of suspension was required to be | |
| done before the expiry of 90 days from the date of order | |
| of suspension and as categorically provided under sub- | |
| rule (7), the order of suspension made or deemed would | |
| not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it was | |
| extended after review for a further period of 90 days. | |
| 11. The case sought to be made out on behalf of the | |
| petitioner Union of India as to the cause of delay in reviewing | |
| the respondent's case, is not very convincing. Section 19(4) of | |
| the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, speaks of abatement of | |
| proceedings once an original application under the said Act was | |
| admitted. In this case, what is important is that by operation | |
| of sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, the order of | |
| suspension would not survive after the period of 90 days | |
| unless it was extended after review. Since admittedly the | |
| review had not been conducted within 90 days from the | |
| date of suspension, it became invalid after 90 days, since |
6
(2010) 2 SCC 222
31
neither was there any review nor extension within the
said period of 90 days. Subsequent review and extension,
in our view, could not revive the order which had already
become invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the date
of suspension. ”
The Apex Court holds that once the period gets over and the
order of suspension results in its revocation pursuant to
efflux of time, a subsequent extension cannot revive the
order of suspension which had become invalid or deemed to
have lapsed in terms of the Rules. The Apex Court was
considering Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal)
Rules, which is identical to Rule 10 (5)(b).
17.2. Long before the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court in
7
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. L.P. TIWARI considers the
object behind providing a time limit in the service Rules for issuance
of articles of charge against the suspended Government servant,
and observes as follows:
“…. …. ….
4. Rule 9 thus contemplates that the disciplinary
authority or any authority empowered by the Governor by a
general or special order is authorised to place the government
7
(1994) 4 SCC 468
32
servant under suspension where disciplinary proceedings
against him are contemplated or are pending or where a case
against him in respect of any criminal offence is under
investigation inquiry or trial. The order of suspension shall
contain the reasons for making such order and where it
proposes to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 14, a copy
of articles of the charges, statement of imputation of misconduct
or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which
charges are proposed to be sustained shall be issued or caused
to be issued by the disciplinary authority to such government
servant within a period of 45 days from the date of order of
a
suspension. By operation of the proviso to sub-rule (2- ) where
the disciplinary authority is the State Government, the copy of
charges and other documents mentioned above shall be issued
or caused to be issued to such government servant within a
period of 90 days from the date of order of suspension. The
object appears to be that the competent authority having
placed a delinquent officer under suspension, cannot sit
over the case without prompt follow-up action of
conducting an inquiry into the alleged misconduct. The
dereliction thereof entails the authority with denuding
the power to continue the officer under suspension,
though the power of enquiry subsists. It would be clear
from proviso to Rule 9(2- b ) which says that “the period of
suspension shall in no case be continued beyond the period of
90 days from the date of the order of suspension”. It would
thus be clear that where disciplinary proceedings are
pending or contemplated, it is open to the appointing
authority, disciplinary authority or authorised officer to
keep government servant under suspension and have the
articles of charges together with the particulars
mentioned hereinbefore “shall be issued or caused to be
issued” by the authority to such government servant
within the period mentioned hereinbefore. On its so
issuing the order of suspension remains in force until
revoked on reconsideration in terms of the rules based on
facts scenario or proceedings terminated by an order on
merits. It is thereby clear that service of the article of
charge is not a condition precedent. Putting it in
transmission within the period is sufficient compliance.
No doubt every endeavour has to be made to have the charge-
sheet served on the delinquent, but the delinquent who evades
33
receipt of it, cannot be allowed to take advantage of such
evasion.”
The Apex Court holds that the object of providing a time limit is
that the Competent Authority, having placed a delinquent officer
under suspension, cannot sit over the said order of suspension
without prompt follow up action of conducting an inquiry into any
alleged misconduct. The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment was
considering Rule 9(2-b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 which also provides
a time limit for issuing the articles of charge from the date of
issuance of the order of suspension.
18 . On a harmonious synthesis of the pronouncements
of the Apex Court, the Division Benches of this Court and the
coordinate Bench, an inescapable conclusion emerges that
the petitioner’s suspension cannot be permitted to subsist
any longer, and must necessarily be revoked. The chronology
of events only reinforces the said conclusion. The petitioner was
placed under suspension on 19-12-2022, well after the amendment
dated 29-10-2020 had come into force. By virtue of the
34
substituted Rule 10(5)(b), the statutory clock began to run.
Upon the expiry of the period of 6 months and in the absence
of any departmental enquiry initiated by issuance of a
charge sheet, the suspension stood automatically revoked by
operation of law. Yet, in the stark disregard to the statutory
mandate, no enquiry was commenced against the petitioner,
for nearly 3 years. It was only pursuant to the order passed by
this Court quoted supra , charge sheet comes to be issued in April
2025, thereafter an order is passed seeking to continue the
suspension until 28-10-2025 ostensibly to justify the prolonged
inaction in initiating a departmental enquiry or reinstating the
petitioner into service upon deemed revocation.
19. Such conduct, on the part of the Board, displays a
troubling disregard to the rule of law. The Board appears to
have treated the statutory safeguards as mere formalities,
over looking the binding nature of Rule 10(5)(b), which
unequivocally declares that suspension stands revoked upon
lapse of 6 months, in the absence of timely action. The
Competent Authority, cannot wield its powers arbitrarily, as
35
though employees were chattels or the institution, a
personal fiefdom. The Board is bound by the discipline of
law. The interpretation accorded to Rule 10(5)(b) by the
Division Benches, must, therefore, operate to the benefit of
the petitioner .
20. The justification sought to be advanced in the affidavit,
that the pendency of criminal case warrants continuance of
suspension, cannot be sustained. The order of suspension was
passed in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. Mere pendency
of a criminal proceeding cannot be invoked to indefinitely prolong
suspension in the absence of any departmental enquiry. In this
regard, the reasoning of Division Bench of the High Court of Madras
8
in DGP, TAMIL NADU v. D. JAYAKUMAR is apposite. The
Division Bench holds as follows:
“…… …… ……
2.The respondent herein was the writ petitioner who was
working in the Police Department and he was allegedly caught
red-handed for the alleged receipt of bribe by the Vigilance and
Anti Corruption Department and pursuant to which, criminal case
is pending. Therefore, it become necessitated for the appellant
employer to suspend him. Therefore, on 07.02.2011 the
8
W.A.No.1657 of 2019 decided on 31-07-2023
36
respondent was suspended. As against the suspension order, he
preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority and who rejected
the said appeal on 27.03.2014. Against which, the respondent
also filed further appeal to the office of the Joint Commissioner
of Police, who by endorsement order dated 22.06.2016, has
rejected the request of the first respondent i.e., Special Sub-
Inspector of Police to revoke the suspension.
3.The reason stated by the appellants in all these orders
for not revoking the suspension is because of the criminal case
that was pending before the concerned Court for trial and once
the case is completed, accordingly a decision will be taken. Till
such time, it may not be conducive for the employer to revoke
the suspension and to reinstate the respondent.
…… …… ……
8.If these kind of cases where without initiating any
disciplinary proceedings merely on the basis of the
pendency of the criminal cases if the Government
employee is suspended, such a suspension cannot be
extended endlessly without any reason.
9.In this context, every quarter of the year i.e., at the end
of third month, the employer has to review the necessity for
extending the suspension.
10. Here in the case on hand, the consistent stand
taken by the appellant Department is that since the
criminal case was pending, at this moment it may not be
conducive for the employer to revoke the suspension.
11. The said reason cannot be stated endlessly for
several years as the criminal case was pending trial
before the concerned Court. ”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
The reasoning of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court is
that the continuance of suspension solely on account of a pending
37
criminal case, without initiation of disciplinary proceedings, is
manifestly arbitrary and unsustainable. I am in respectful
agreement with the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench of
the Madras High Court.
21. Thus, upon a harmonious construction of the
statutory framework, the binding precedents and the
undisputed factual matrix, it becomes abundantly clear that
the suspension of the petitioner cannot be permitted to
subsist. A direction must ensue, to revoke the order of suspension
and grant appropriate posting to the petitioner, in accordance with
law. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner becomes entitled to
the benefits that would flow from the aforesaid direction. The
benefits would be, all consequential benefits – service benefits,
from the date of expiry of 6 months of the order of suspension.
22. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
O R D E R
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
38
Mandamus issues
(ii) to the respondents/Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Board to give posting to
the petitioner as his suspension is deemed to have been
revoked from the date of expiry of six months’ of
placing him under suspension.
(iii) The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential
benefit that would flow from the aforesaid direction
from the date of completion of six months’ of placing
him under suspension.
SD/-
( M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:SS