SMT PUSHPAVATI M MEDAR D/O MAHADEVAPPA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15826-DB
WP No. 108109 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020176472026


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


ND
DATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

WRIT PETITION NO. 108109 OF 2026 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

SMT. PUSHPAVATI M. MEDAR,
D/O. MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
HALLIGERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
TQ & DIST: DHARWAD.
R/AT: MAHANTESH HANCHINAL,
SUKRUTI PEARL APARTMENT,
BEHIND JAYANAGARA SAPTAGIRI,
PETROL BUNK, DHARWAD.
…PETITIONER









(BY SRI. ARVIND D. UPADHYE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ
COMMISSIONERATE, RDPR,
KALIDASA MARGA,
GANDHINAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 009.

Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15826-DB
WP No. 108109 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020176472026

3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
DHARWAD – 580 001.
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYATH,
DHARWAD TALUK – 580 001,
DHARWAD DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R2;
SRI. RAJENDRASWAMI C. HOSMATH,
ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE AN ORDER OF DIRECTION OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE
OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
17.09.2026 PASSED IN A.NO.11201/2026 (ANNEXURE-B)
PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI BENCH AND CONSEQUENTLY. TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF
SUSPENSION BEARING NO.DHAJIPAM/ UUKAA/ C-9/ CR/ 10/
2026 - 27/ 2434 DATED 03.09.2026 (ANNEXURE-A9 IN
RD
ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE 3 RESPONDENT, AND DIRECT
THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE BACK THE PETITIONER
FORTHWITH TO DUTY, PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE WRIT
PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. TO
PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION DEEMED JUST AND
EXPEDIENT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING
THE COSTS.

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


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15826-DB
WP No. 108109 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020176472026

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )

The petitioner, claiming to be aggrieved by the non-grant
of an interim order of stay of the order of suspension by the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal”, for
short), is before this Court.
2. Heard Sri. Aravind D Upadhya, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sharad V Magadum,
learned AGA for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Sri.
Rajendraswami C Hosamath, learned counselappearing for
respondent No.3.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
At the relevant point in time, the petitioner was working
as Senior Panchayat Development Officer in Halligeri Grama
Panchayat. The issue relates to certain omissions and
commissions on the part of the petitioner, which are termed as
misconduct by the respondents.Owing to the alleged
misconduct of the petitioner, a notice came to be issued to the
petitioner on 25.08.2026. The notice is said to have been

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15826-DB
WP No. 108109 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020176472026

received by the petitioner on 31.08.2026, and the petitioner
submitted his reply on 03.09.2026.
4. The contention of the petitioner is twin-fold. One,
that even before the reply could reach the respondents, the
order of suspension came to be passed, not on the reply
submitted by the petitioner, but on an independent assessment
without considering the reply. The other is that, the competent
authority to pass an order of suspension against a Senior
Panchayat Development Officer is the Commissioner, whereas
the order of suspension has been passed by the Chief Executive
Officer of the Zilla Panchayat.
5. Both these submissions are to be thrashed out after
filing of objections before the Tribunal at the stage of final
hearing. The only contention that is now emphatically projected
is that, even before the reply of the petitioner could reach the
respondents, the order of suspension came to be passed. The
learned counsel would seek to place reliance upon the
judgment rendered by one of us in Writ Petition No.107630
of 2025, disposed on 06.11.2025 .

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15826-DB
WP No. 108109 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020176472026

6. The allegations against the petitioner found in the
notice read as follows:
“«µÀAiÀÄ: ºÀ½îUÉÃj UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw (¦.r.N) C¢üPÁj ªÉÄïÉ
vÀ¤SÉ £Àqɹ CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀPÀÄjvÀÄ.
G¯ÉèÃR: ²æà gÀĸÀÆ®¸Á§ dªÀiÁzÁgÀ ºÁUÀÆ
ªÀiÁ«£ÀPÉÆ¥ÀàUÁæªÀÄzÀUÁæªÀĸÀägÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27-
08-2025
*
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ²æà gÀ¸ÀÆ®¸Á§ dªÀiÁzÁgÀ ºÁUÀÆ
ªÀiÁ«£ÀPÉÆ¥ÀàUÁæªÀÄzÀUÁæªÀĸÀÜgÀÄ ºÀ½îUÉÃj UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ
ªÀiÁ«£ÀPÉÆ¥ÀàUÁæªÀÄzÀ°è F PɼÀPÀAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄzÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
1. M¼À ZÀgÀAr UÀmÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ gÀ¸ÉÛ §¢AiÀÄ°è£À PÀ¸À PÀAnUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ
¸ÀéZÀÒ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ªÀļÉUÁ®zÀ°è ZÀgÀAr ¤ÃgÀÄ ¤AwgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀd£ÀgÀ°è
¸ÁAPÁæ«ÄPÀ gÉÆÃUÀUÀ¼ÀÄ §gÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§ªÀ«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV gÀ¸ÉÛUÀ¼ÀÄ
E®èzÀPÁgÀt ªÀļÉAiÀÄ ¤ÃgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ½UÉ £ÀÄVÎ M¼À ZÀgÀAr ¤ÃgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ
§gÀÄwÛzÉ.
2. ¦.r.M C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁVUÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwPÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄzÀ°è
®¨sÀå«®èzÀPÁgÀt £ÀªÀÄäUÁæªÀĪÀÅzsÁgÀªÁqÀf¯ÉèAiÀÄPÀqÉAiÀÄ ºÀ½îAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ
d£ÀjUÉPÁAiÀÄðPÉÌ ¨sÉÃn ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸Àj ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 1
ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ ¦.r.M C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁ«£ÀPÉÆ¥ÀàUÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ¨sÉÃnAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀºÀ
¤ÃqÀzÉUÁæªÀĸÀÜgÀPÀÄAzÀÄPÉÆgÀvÉ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ ¸Ëd£ÀåªÀÅ vÉÆÃj¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ªÀļÉUÁ® E®èzÀjAzÀd£ÀjUÉAiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
3. ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄUÀ½AzÀ GzÉÆåÃUÀSÁwæAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä
PÉýzÀgÉ d£ÀjUÉ CªÁZÀÑ ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢ü¹ KPÀ ªÀZÀ£ÀzÀ°è
ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
4. E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆAiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÉ®¸À ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £ÀªÀÄäUÁæªÀÄzÀd£ÀgÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ
¨ÉÃgÉ UÉÆêÁ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀĺÁgÁµÀÖæ gÁdåUÀ½UÉ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ UÀÄ¼É ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ.
5. PÀ¼ÉzÀ ªÀµÀðªÀÅ ¸ÀºÀ CAzÀgÉ 2025-2026 ¸Á°£À°è
ªÀiÁrzÀGzÉÆåÃUÀSÁwæAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄPÁªÀÄUÁjAiÀÄ°èCªÀåªÀ¸ÀºÁgÀ £Àqɹ
¸ÀļÀÄî zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ªÀiÁ»w ¤Ã vÀªÀÄäC¢üPÁgÀzÀPÀvÀðªÀå ¯ÉÆÃ¥À ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ
zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ªÀiÁ«£ÀPÉÆ¥ÀàUÁæªÀÄzÀ°è
¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀAiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃqÀzÉÃCzsÀðPÉÌJzÀÄÝ
ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀjAzÁVC¢üPÁgÀ zÀħð¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁr E¯ÁSÉUÉ ºÁUÀÆ

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15826-DB
WP No. 108109 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020176472026

¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 02 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀiÁ»w PÉýzÁUÀ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
6. ªÀÄ£É ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁqÀ®ÄPÀlÖqÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæPÀÆÌ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ
PÁgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤Ãrd£ÀjUÉNqÁr¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆPÀlÖqÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ
¥ÀvÀæ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
7. ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀjUÉ PÉ®¸ÀUÀ½UÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌPÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄPÉÌ
¨sÉÃnPÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
8. 15 £Éà ºÀtPÁ¸ÀÄAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄPÉÃAzÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛgÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ
ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄßUÁæªÀĸÀÜgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄvÀ¤SÉ £ÀqɸÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ¤¢ü-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤¢ü-2
gÀ ¯ÉPÀÌ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀiÁ»wvÀ¤SÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀjzÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ zÀÆj£À°ègÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À
PÀÄjvÀÄ F ¥ÀvÀævÀ®Ä¦zÀMAzÀÄ ªÁgÀzÉƼÀUÁV ¥ÀÇgÀPÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ vÀªÀÄä
¸ÀàµÀÖC©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ.”

Though the subject of the communication relates to the
suspension of the petitioner, it is suspension pending inquiry.
Though the petitioner had submitted his reply, in law, there is
no warrant for issuance of any notice or prior notice seeking to
show cause as to why a particular employee should be placed
under suspension or otherwise.

7. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the
division bench of the High Court of Jharkhand in the case of
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF JHARKHAND v. DR. ISWAR
1
CHAND BIDYASAGAR , wherein it holds as follows:

1
2021 SCC OnLineJhar 1579

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15826-DB
WP No. 108109 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020176472026

“ …. …. ….
52.So far as the issue no. (i) which pertains to
the observance of the principle of natural justice
before issuance of the order of suspension is
concerned, it is not in dispute that an order of
suspension is not a punishment rather the power to
put the delinquent employee under suspension is
only to deactivate the delinquent employee from
active service, so that, he may not be able to
tamper with the evidence or initiation of
departmental proceeding in any way, since the
order of suspension is not a punishment rather it is
by way of ad-interim measure i.e., during the
pendency of the departmental proceeding, the
services are being deactivated, therefore, there is
no question of infringement of any right by putting
the delinquent employee under suspension, hence,
the principle of natural justice will not be
applicable.
53. The principle of natural justice is only made to
be applicable in a case where the vested or accrued right
is being taken away leading to civil consequences and in
that circumstances, a person who is going to be adversely
affected leading to civil consequences, such person
cannot be condemned without providing opportunity of
hearing but as has been settled that order of
suspension being not a punishment rather
deactivate the delinquent employee from active
service, therefore, there is no question of taking
away any accrued or vested right.
54. In this regard, reference may be made to the
judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Mohammad
Ghouse v. State of Andhra, (1956) 2 SCC 706 : AIR 1957
SC 246, wherein, at para 9, it has been held that in a
case of suspension pending final orders by the
Government, such an order is neither one of dismissal nor
of removal from service within Article 311 of the
Constitution of India.
55.The Kerala High Court judgment rendered
in Mayuranathan v. State of Kerala, 1960 SCC

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15826-DB
WP No. 108109 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020176472026

OnLine Ker 263, after relying upon the judgment
rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of
Mohammad Ghouse v. State of Andhra, (supra) has
laid down that an order of suspension pending an
enquiry cannot be regarded as a punishment within
the purview of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of
India and in that view neither any question of
opportunity to show cause nor of violation of the
principles of natural justice arises in this case.
56. Further, the suspension pending enquiry
into charges of misconduct of government servants
without providing an opportunity of hearing before
passing of the order of suspension has been
considered by the Calcutta High Court in Kali
Prosanna Roy v. State of West Bengal, 1951 SCC
OnLine Cal 298 : AIR 1952 Cal 769, Venkateswarlu
v. State of Madras, 1953 SCC OnLine Mad 291 : AIR
1954 Mad 587, Gurudeva Narayan v. State of Bihar,
1954 SCC OnLine Pat 73 : AIR 1955 Pat 131,
Thimma Reddy v. State of Andhra, 1957 SCC OnLine
AP 264 : AIR 1958 AP 35, Gopalkrishna Naidu v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, 1951 SCC OnLine MP 95 :
AIR 1952 Nag 170, wherein, it has been held by the
High Courts that no prior notice is necessary to
validate the order of suspension.
57. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147 :
(2014) 2 JLJR (SC) 35], has been pleased to lay down at
para 27 that suspension is a device to keep the
delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose is to
complete the proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an
interim measure in the aid of disciplinary
proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain
custody or control of papers or take any advantage
of his position.
58.This Court after taking into consideration
the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Supreme Court
as also by the different High Courts is of the view
that the contention raised by the learned counsel
for the writ petitioner about observance of principle
of natural justice, the order of suspension is bad in

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15826-DB
WP No. 108109 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020176472026

the eye of Law, is not acceptable by this Court,
accordingly, the said ground is rejected.
59. However, if the order of suspension is being
passed by way of punishment if provided under the list of
punishment, then certainly the principle of natural justice
will be attracted as because the order of punishment
being a punishment can only be given by providing a
reasonable opportunity of being heard but herein the
order of suspension is not inflicted byway of punishment
rather it is in contemplation of departmental proceeding,
therefore, the principle of applicability of natural justice
will not be applicable.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The afore-quoted judgment observes that a suspension order
issued as an interim measure during the pendency of the
disciplinary proceedings and not as a punitive measure does
not mandate a show-cause notice or vest a right to be heard
with respect to the person against whom such disciplinary
proceedings are instituted. In that light, the respondents in the
present case have taken a step which was unnecessary in law
by issuing a notice seeking to show cause as to why an order of
suspension should not be passed.
8. Owing to the allegations, the Tribunal has rightly
rejected the prayer for grant of an interim order of stay of the
order of suspension.However, all the contentions are left open
to the petitioner to be urged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15826-DB
WP No. 108109 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020176472026

shall consider the same and take the matter to its logical
conclusion.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands
dismissed.
10. The learned Government Advocate is permitted to
file a memo of appearance within four weeks.




Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE






VNP/CT: ASC
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2