- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1322 WP No. 202530 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.202530 OF 2024 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: SHRI.SHIVAPUTRAPPA S/O SRIMANTH KAKKALAMELI, AGE: 46 YEARS OCC: PRINCIPAL M. D. R. SCHOOL ( 301), GIRLS RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, JEWARGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585310. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HULEPPA HEROOR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDINGS, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY 8 M.S B-1 6TH AND 7TH FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1322 WP No. 202530 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 30.08.2024 IN NO. KREIS/ ENQR/ DISP/ 116/2024- ADMN/ E-141300 WHICH IS PLACED AT ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.KREIS/ENQR/DISP/116/2024-ADMN/E-141300 dated 30.08.2024 issued by respondent No.2 suspending the petitioner from service. 2. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Principal at Morarji Desai Residential School, Jewargi, on 07.07.2023. He contends that the Deputy Commissioner, Kalaburgi had addressed a letter dated 28.08.2024 to look into the complaints received from the students against the Physical Instructor Sri Prabhugouda Madagi and lodged a complaint against him before the jurisdictional police. He contends that, he immediately looked into the matter and promptly lodged a complaint against physical instructor teacher and a FIR was registered in Crime No.225/2024. Later, the teacher Sri - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1322 WP No. 202530 of 2024 Prabhugouda Madagi was suspended on 30.08.2024. When things stood thus, the petitioner was suspended on the same day on the ground that he failed to take action on the complaint lodged by the students. The petitioner is therefore, before this court challenging the order of suspension. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a complaint lodged against Sri Prabhugouda Madagi was investigated by the jurisdictional police and a ‘B’ report was filed. He submits that the court issued notice to the complainants and they appeared before the court and submitted that no incident as complained by them happened and therefore, the court accepted the ‘B’ report and closed the case. He therefore submits that the ground on which the petitioner is suspended does not survive now and the respondents are therefore bound to revoke the order of suspension. Besides this, he contends that, though the petitioner was suspended on 30.08.2024, the respondents have not initiated any enquiry within three months by framing Articles of Charge. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1322 WP No. 202530 of 2024 Choudhary Vs. Union of India and another [(2015) 7 SCC 291]. He thus contends that, order of suspension being malafide and it having no basis has to be set at naught. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that mere acceptance of a ‘B’ report by the police does not absolve the petitioner of the charges. He contends that the petitioner had failed to look into the complaints lodged by the female students who accused the physical instructor teacher of sexual harassment. He therefore contends that, the petitioner was bound to take immediate action and his failure to take action was a misconduct and hence, he had to be departmentally proceeded against. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of GM Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and another [AIR 2006 SC 2129]. He also contended that the respondent No.2 is governed by the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957, in terms of which, the disciplinary enquiry has to commence within six months from the date of the order of suspension. Therefore, he contends that, both the grounds urged by the petitioner does not merit consideration. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1322 WP No. 202530 of 2024 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Learned Additional Government Advocate also supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 6. The order of suspension which is impugned in this writ petition refers to certain complaints lodged by five girl students on 29.08.2024, accusing Sri Prabhugouda Madigi of sexual harassment. It also states that even after the students had lodged complaint against Sri Prabhugouda Madigi, the petitioner had not taken any action. The basis for suspension of the petitioner is therefore a complaint lodged against Sri Prabhugouda Madigi and the alleged lethargy on the part of the petitioner to take action. It is now stated that the jurisdictional police after conducting an investigation had filed ‘B’ Report and the Court had issued notices to the parents of the victims. The victims were also served with the notice and they appeared before the court and were examined as CW4 to CW8. The victims stated that, no incident took place as stated in the complaint and that the case may be closed against Sri Prabhugouda Madigi. In that view of the matter, even if an - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1322 WP No. 202530 of 2024 enquiry is held against the petitioner, the students cannot now make a U-turn and accuse Sri Prabhugouda Madigi of sexual harassment. Therefore, the witnesses who were mentioned in the criminal case were the same witnesses who will have to depose before the domestic enquiry. In that view of the matter, continuing the petitioner under suspension would not sub-serve any purpose as the intended enquiry would be an empty formality. 7. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of suspension passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed. The respondent No.2 is directed to restore the services of the petitioner forthwith. This shall not be construed as giving a clean chit to Sri Prabhugouda Madigi. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE THM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14 CT:SI