A tribunal cannot resolve disputed facts on suspension at the interim stage without the opposing version or record.

The respondent employees, including Panchayat Development Officers, a Grama Panchayat Secretary Grade-II and a Second Division Assistant, were issued show-cause notices concerning a media report about their participation in a function at Siddarabetta on 24 July 2026.

They replied, admitting participation and lunch with others but contending that the function was attended after office hours.

The Zilla Panchayat thereafter suspended them under Rule 10(1)(d) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (“CCA Rules”).

The employees challenged the suspension orders before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which stayed them on 11 August 2026, reasoning that the suspensions were based on media reports and that the replies had not been considered.

The disciplinary authority challenged those interim orders before the High Court.

1. Whether the Tribunal could, at the interim stage, make factual findings about the basis and validity of the suspension orders without first receiving the disciplinary authority’s version or examining the relevant records.

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in staying the suspensions on the ground that the authority had not considered the employees’ replies or had failed to satisfy Rule 10(3) of the CCA Rules.

Rule 10(1)(d) of the CCA Rules was the provision under which the disciplinary authority exercised its power to suspend the employees.

Rule 10(3) requires the competent authority to examine relevant material and consider whether prima facie evidence supports the charges before placing a government servant under suspension.

In interim proceedings, a court or tribunal should not determine disputed factual matters or make findings that effectively decide the merits without the other side’s version or examination of the relevant records; whether the authority considered relevant material and the employees’ replies must be assessed on the record at the substantive hearing.

No judicial precedents were relied on in the order.

The High Court held that the Tribunal had gone beyond the proper scope of interim review by concluding that the suspensions rested on media reports and that the replies had not been considered.

The employees’ replies admitted their participation in the event but asserted that it occurred after office hours, leaving factual matters requiring consideration of the parties’ versions and records.

Although Rule 10(3) requires consideration of relevant material and prima facie evidence, whether the authority complied could not properly be decided merely from the suspension orders at the interim stage.

The Court also declined to determine whether the replies had in fact been considered, as doing so could prejudice the parties before the Tribunal.

It requested the Tribunal to hear and dispose of the pending applications once pleadings were complete, on the next hearing date or as early as possible.

The operative order identifies the application in W.P. No. 28194/2026 as No. 3600/2026, but refers to the connected writ petition as W.P. No. 28129/2026; the cause title lists W.P. No. 28219/2026.