- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2448-DB WA No. 200113 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 200113 OF 2025 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: REDDY RAYANAGOUDA S/O SHANKAR GOUDA AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS, OCC: CHIEF OFFICER, LINGASUGUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584122. …APPELLANT (BY SRI AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, SR. ADV. FOR SRI GANESH SUBHASHCHANDRA KALBURGI, SRI ANANTH S. JAHAGIRDAR & DESHPANDE G.V., ADVS.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAICHUR DISTRICT, RAICHUR – 584101. Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2448-DB WA No. 200113 of 2025 3. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU – 560001. 4. THE KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (KRIDL), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BENGALURU – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN BASAREDDY, GA) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.200949/2025 AND TO PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2448-DB WA No. 200113 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This intra Court appeal is filed seeking prayer to set aside the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.200949/2025, wherein the interim prayer of the petitioner-appellant has been declined. 2. Heard Sri.Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Mallikarjun S. Basareddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 3. Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was working as a Chief Officer, Maski Municipal Council and thereafter he was transferred to Karatagi Municipal Council and then to Lingasugur Municipal Council. The Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, issued a suspension order dated 24.03.2025 alleging that the appellant took up the work which was not approved. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2448-DB WA No. 200113 of 2025 However, the said order of suspension was revoked by respondent No.3-Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Bengaluru, on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, has no jurisdiction to keep the appellant under suspension and he passed an order of suspension dated 25.03.2025. 4. It is submitted that the suspension order of respondent No.3 dated 25.03.2025, is without application of mind and it is passed in violation of Rule 10(3) of Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules 1957. It is further submitted that the authority keeping the appellant under suspension has not even recorded any reason or the satisfaction with regard to the prima-facie opinion for suspension. Hence requires interference. It is also submitted that these aspects were urged before the learned Single Judge, however the learned Single Judge failed to take note of the same and refused to grant interim relief. Hence the present appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2448-DB WA No. 200113 of 2025 5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the learned Single Judge has not closed the doors and the consideration of interim relief was deferred for the time being and it is always open for the appellant to approach the learned Single Judge and seek interim relief. He adds that even in the summer vacation bench, he can move before the learned Single Judge and seek for such relief. 6. We have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record 7. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is required to be considered in view of specific mandate of law under Rule 10(3) of the aforesaid rules. Prima-facie, we are of the opinion that the authority competent to place the Government Servant under suspension is required to examine the relevant material relating to the case and consider whether there is a prima- facie evidence to support the charges made against the Government Servant and if it is satisfied on such - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2448-DB WA No. 200113 of 2025 examination that the prima-facie evidence exists then the competent authority can keep the Government Officer under suspension. The order dated 25.03.2025 of respondent No.3 is silent with regard to the consideration of the material placed before him and it is not forthcoming as to whether such material were placed before respondent No.3, before taking decision and no prima- facie satisfaction is expressed by respondent No.3 in the impugned order. Hence, the matter requires consideration. There shall be an interim order of stay of the order dated 25.03.2025 till the disposal of the writ petition. 8. We are of the considered view that the observations made supra is made only keeping in mind the fact that there is an ensuing summer vacation and there would be delay in consideration of the interim prayer. Hence, the present order is passed. 9. The observations made by this Court will not come in the way of learned Single Judge in deciding the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2448-DB WA No. 200113 of 2025 writ petition on its merits in accordance with law, once the objections are filed by the contesting respondents. With the above observations and directions, the writ appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT: PS