Karnataka HC Leaves Two PDOs Suspended For Now, Says Zilla CEOs Can Suspend Group-B Staff Lent To Panchayats

Both petitioners were Panchayat Development Officers (PDOs) placed under suspension by the respective Chief Executive Officers of the Zilla Panchayats under Rule 10(1)(d) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (“CCA Rules”), pending departmental proceedings.

Each challenged the suspension before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and sought interim relief staying the suspension; the Tribunal rejected both interim applications.

The petitioners then filed these writ petitions, contending, among other things, that the CEOs lacked authority to suspend them because the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj, was the appointing authority for PDOs

Rule 10(1)(d) of the CCA Rules permits suspension pending departmental proceedings

Rule 15(2-A), which begins with a non obstante clause, gives a Zilla Panchayat CEO the powers of the appointing authority to suspend specified lent government servants, including a Group-B government servant whose services are lent to a Zilla, Taluk or Gram Panchayat, subject to the stated exclusion; it also authorises disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of the specified minor penalties

An executive order may supplement existing rules but cannot override or contradict them

Suspension is not itself a punishment; it may be used to keep a government servant away from the workplace while material is collected for disciplinary proceedings

The Court declined to decide at this stage whether the allegations justified suspension, holding that this required consideration of the material before the Tribunal and was not for the High Court to determine in these interim writ proceedings

On the jurisdictional objection, the Court accepted that the Commissioner had been prescribed as appointing authority for PDOs, but held that the Government’s executive order could not displace Rule 15(2-A).

Because that rule expressly confers suspension powers on the CEO in respect of qualifying Group-B government servants whose services are lent to local panchayat bodies, the petitioners’ contention did not establish grounds to interfere with the Tribunal’s interim decisions

It found no merit in either writ petition and rejected both, leaving the Tribunal’s refusal to grant interim stays in place