- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15296 WP No. 10215 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 10215 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SATHISH KUMAR S.T. S/O LAKSHMAMMA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PERMANENT RESIDENT OF 'SHRIYASAMA', CH NO.54, 6TH CROSS K.R. VANAM, MYSURU-8 WORKING AS POSTMASTER HSG-I UNDER SUSPENSION HEAD POST OFFICE NANJANAGUDU-571301 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. CHETHANA S.J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF POSTS MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND IT DAK BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KARNATAKA CIRCLE, PALACE ROAD BENGALURU-560001 3. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL SOUTH KARNATAKA REGION 2ND FLOOR, GPO BUILDING BENGALURU-01 4. THE SUPDT OF POST OFFICES NANJANAGUDU DIVISION NANJANAGUDU-571301 Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15296 WP No. 10215 of 2025 5. TARA V., W/O GANGAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WORKING AS DIRECTOR POSTAL SERVICES HEAD QUARTERS O/O THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KARNATAKA CIRCLE BENGALURU-560001 6. RAJENDRA KUMAR S., S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WORKING AS CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KARNATAKA CIRCLE, BENGALURU-01. 7. CHANDRASHEKAR KAKUMANU S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS POSTMASTER GENERAL SOUTH KARNATAKA REGION GPO BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 8. GOVINDARAJU N., AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, NANJANAGUDU-571301 9. LAKSHMIKANTH DASH S/O P.K. DASH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS THE DDG, DAK BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG NEW DELHI-01 10. JAYARAMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS SUPDT. OF POST OFFICES, SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION-577201 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15296 WP No. 10215 of 2025 11. RAVEENDRA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS SRM, RMS Q DIVISION MANGALURU-01 12. SHRIKANTAIAH A.T. AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER WORKING AS ASSISTANT SUPDT. OF POST OFFICES O/O POSTMASTER GENERAL, SOUTH KARNATAKA REGION GPO BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 13. SMT. SWATHI W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS INSPECTOR POSTS O/O POSTMASTER GENERAL, SK REGION BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.04.2025, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 13 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.03.2025 PASSED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. SP/CONFIDENTIAL/DLGS/2025 DATED 28.03.2025 AT ANNEXURE-A PLACING THE PETITIONER UNDER SUSPENSION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15296 WP No. 10215 of 2025 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.SP/Confidential/Dlgs/2025 dated 28.03.2025 passed by respondent No.8 suspending him from service. The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to continue him at the same place from where he was relieved till completion of his tenure. He has also sought for a direction to respondent No.1 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against respondent Nos.5 to 13 for harassing him by violating the Government of India decision Nos.13 and 14 under Rule 3 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs O.M.No.41/2/55(II)-Ests.(A), dated 23.04.1955, Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, O.M.No.11013/10/93-Estt.(A) dated 06.10.1993. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he is working as Postmaster at Nanjanagudu with effect from 01.07.2024. He claimed that a complaint of sexual harassment was filed by Smt. C. Shobha. He claimed that respondent Nos.5, 6 and 9 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15296 WP No. 10215 of 2025 were harassing all those who supported the said Smt. C. Shobha. He alleged that respondent Nos.5, 6 and 9 transferred Mr. Lokesha and Mr. Sunil Kumar, who had deposed in favour of Smt. C. Shobha. He claimed that the said persons were served with a charge memo and placed under suspension. The petitioner alleged that the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 9 had issued a show-cause notice dated 28.02.2024 to him alleging that he was present before this Court on 10.11.2023, without obtaining permission, when W.P.No.24167/2023 filed by the Department against Smt. C. Shobha was listed before this Court. He claimed that Smt. C. Shobha submitted a representation dated 06.03.2024 to respondent No.1 stating therein that the Assistant Director (Staff and Vigilance) of respondent No.3 had informed her that respondent Nos.5, 6 and 9 believed that the petitioner was supporting Smt. C. Shobha and that respondent No.5 was repeatedly insisting him to create documents to place the petitioner under suspension and that he was receiving calls from respondent Nos.6 and 9 to implicate the petitioner so that they can transfer him out of the region. The petitioner claimed that he submitted a representation dated 07.03.2024 for copies of the documents - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15296 WP No. 10215 of 2025 but the official respondents did not furnish them but issued another letter dated 12.04.2024 and supplied irrelevant documents. (ii) The petitioner alleged that being aggrieved by the actions of respondent Nos.5, 6 and 9, he filed W.P.No.13317/2024. The petitioner had also filed O.A.No.270/2024 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. However, the said application was withdrawn before the Tribunal with liberty to file a fresh application, if need arises. The petitioner then submitted a representation dated 27.04.2024 to respondent No.2 and requested him for a direction to respondent No.3 to supply the documents or to drop further action based on the show-cause notice dated 28.02.2024. However, without considering the representation, the official respondents issued another letter dated 24.05.2024 and directed him to submit his explanation for which, he submitted a representation to respondent No.2 and requested for personal hearing. (iii) The petitioner contends that a regular officer was posted as Director, Postal Services, South Karnataka Region, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15296 WP No. 10215 of 2025 while respondent No.7 took charge of the South Karnataka Postal Region. Therefore, the additional charge handled by respondent Nos.5 and 9 was terminated. The petitioner claimed that he presuming that there would be no further harassment, filed a memo to withdraw W.P.No.13317/2024 and accordingly, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.08.2024. (iv) The petitioner contends that Bharatiya Postal Employees' Association, Group - C, had alleged corruption, nepotism and favoritism against respondent No.8 in transfer, posting, allotment of staff quarters, procurement of goods and services and had lodged complaints with respondent Nos.2 and 4. The respondent No.8 transferred Mr. Madesha Shetty in violation of guidelines and directed the petitioner to relieve him. When the petitioner sought for time, the respondent No.8 abused him. The petitioner contends that there was a shortage of cash of Rs.1,48,000/- in the Treasury of Nanjanagudu Head Post Office, which was reported by him to respondent No.8 on 09.09.2024, 07.10.2024 and 02.12.2024. However, respondent No.8 visited the Head Post Office on 09.12.2024 and even after being informed about the missing - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15296 WP No. 10215 of 2025 cash, respondent No.8 joined hands with the Treasurer in submitting a report that the cash was intact. The petitioner then submitted representations dated 24.01.2025 and 13.02.2025 to respondent No.8 regarding the shortage of cash. However, respondent No.8 did not respond to the same. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a detailed report to respondent No.3 on 21.02.2025, which enraged the respondent No.8. (v) The petitioner contends that since respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 did not heed to his complaints against respondent No.8, he represented to Bharatiya Postal Employees' Association along with Mr. H.S. Umesh to dispose off his complaints. In the meanwhile, respondent No.5 was transferred as Director Postal Services, Headquarters on 27.12.2024 and reported at Bengaluru. After he assumed charge, a vigilance team consisting of respondent Nos.10 to 13 was constituted. They purportedly informed that they were aware that the petitioner was supporting Smt. C. Shobha in her cases before this Court and instructed the respondent Nos.6 and 7 to inform the petitioner to tell Smt. C. Shobha to withdraw all cases filed by her. However, the petitioner - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15296 WP No. 10215 of 2025 informed that he cannot interfere in the matter, to which, the vigilance team informed him that he would be placed under suspension as per the directions of respondent Nos.5 to 7 and 9. The petitioner contends that when he refused to comply their illegal demand, a questionnaire was served on him regarding his immovable properties and PAN card. He claimed that respondent No.8 without any authority of law issued the impugned suspension order. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of suspension, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suspension of the petitioner is not bonafide but is malafide, as the petitioner is targeted for supporting Smt. C. Shobha. She contends that the documents placed on record would indicate that the petitioner has been targeted for raising the issue of shortage of cash in the Treasury and escalating it before various authorities. She therefore, contends that the impugned suspension being not bonafide, is liable to be quashed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15296 WP No. 10215 of 2025 5. Per contra, the learned counsel Smt. Anupama Hegde, representing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable before this Court as the petitioner is bound to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. She contends that the impugned order of suspension is passed by a competent authority pending disciplinary proceedings. She therefore, contends that this Court should not interfere with such an order of suspension. She contends that suspension is neither a punishment nor does it affect the service conditions of the petitioner and therefore, unless his order of suspension is without the authority of law, this Court should refrain from exercising jurisdiction to interfere with it. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 7. The petitioner is admittedly an employee of the postal department and therefore, any dispute regarding his service had to be agitated before the Central Administrative Tribunal as provided under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15296 WP No. 10215 of 2025 admitted that he had filed an O.A.No.270/2024 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the show-cause notice dated 28.02.2024 and had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Therefore, he cannot approach this Court challenging the order of suspension. It is true that this Court can exercise jurisdiction even in the face of an alternative remedy, but that is done only in exceptional circumstances, when a fundamental right of a citizen is affected or when the order impugned is one without jurisdiction or principles of natural justice are not followed etc., A perusal of the writ petition shows that the impugned order of suspension is challenged on the ground that the petitioner was victimized and targeted for supporting Smt. C. Shobha and also for escalating a complaint regarding shortage of cash. The show-cause notice issued to the petitioner on 28.02.2024 (Annexure - C) shows that the petitioner was present before this Court on 10.11.2023 and therefore, the department felt it appropriate to seek an explanation from the petitioner as to how he was present in the Court without obtaining the permission to leave the headquarters. The impugned order of suspension seems to be in the light of this unauthorized leaving of headquarters. Since - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15296 WP No. 10215 of 2025 this Court has already opined that the petitioner has to exhaust the alternative remedy available to her, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11