Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35103 (KAR)

SHRI.R. LOKESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/30452/2024 · 2025-04-25

R Nataraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17310 WP No. 30452 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30373 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30452 OF 2024 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 30373 OF 2024 (S-RES) IN WP No. 30452/2024 BETWEEN: SHRI R. LOKESH S/O V. RAMASANJEEVA SETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT O/O ASSISTANT CONTROLLER (FIRNEE) BBMP, DASARAHALLI ZONE, MEI LAYOUT, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560088 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMN) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002 4. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER (FINANCE) BBMP, DASARAHALLI ZONE Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17310 WP No. 30452 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30373 of 2024 MEI LAYOUT, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 088 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. PAVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.B.12(6)./PR/17/2024-25 DATED 09.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (VIDE ANNEXURE-C) AND SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ETC. IN WP NO. 30373/2024 BETWEEN: SHRI M. GANGAPPA S/O SHRI M.P. MRUTYUNJAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT O/O JOINT COMMISSIONER, BBMP, DASARAHALLI ZONE, MEI LAYOUT, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560088 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17310 WP No. 30452 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30373 of 2024 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMN) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002 4. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER (FINANCE) BBMP, DASARAHALLI ZONE MEI LAYOUT, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 088 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.B.12(6)/PR/17/ 2024-25 DATED 09.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (VIDE ANNEXURE-C) AND SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER IN W.P. NO.30452/2024 The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.B.12(6).PR/17/2024-25 dated 09.10.2024 passed by respondent No.3, by which he was suspended from service. 2. The petitioner contends that while he was working as a First Division Assistant, a complaint was lodged by one - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17310 WP No. 30452 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30373 of 2024 Dr.C.S.Raghu on 06.08.2024 alleging that the petitioner had demanded and accepted illegal gratification for releasing the bills. Following this, a show-cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Administration) to the petitioner on 27.08.2024. The petitioner submitted his explanation and informed the Assistant Commissioner (Administration) that the complainant was in the habit of lodging complaints and blackmailing the officials of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short) and that the bills for the period was submitted on 18.05.2024 itself and payment was forwarded through Real-Time Gross Settlement, to the concerned contractors. It was contended that when the complainant failed to extract money from the petitioner, the complainant fabricated videos and forwarded them to his superiors, thereby tarnishing the image of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that ignoring the reply submitted by him, he was placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 09.10.2024. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.10.2024 stating that the explanation submitted by him to the show cause notice was not considered and therefore requested the same be considered and the suspension order be revoked. Since the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17310 WP No. 30452 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30373 of 2024 same is not considered, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of suspension and has sought for a direction to reinstate him into service. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Rule 10(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (henceforth referred to as 'the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957'), before the authority places a government servant under suspension, it is bound to consider whether there is prima facie evidence to support the charges made and only if it is satisfied that prima facie evidence exists, could a government servant be placed under suspension. He contends that the complainant was a third party to the contract and was not concerned with any works or bills that were allegedly pending payment. He contended that the complainant was a busy body and was in the habit of lodging false and frivolous complaints against the officials with an intent to blackmail them and to extract money from them. He therefore contends that the respondents must have been mindful of the reply submitted by the petitioner before passing the impugned order. He submits that a perusal of the impugned order does not show any application of mind to the reply submitted by the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17310 WP No. 30452 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30373 of 2024 petitioner and therefore prayed that the impugned order be set at naught. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent No.1 submits that the reply of the petitioner was indeed considered by the respondent No.2 and it was found that the allegations against the petitioner were prima facie true and warranted an enquiry. He contends that the impugned order is therefore just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 5. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 had thoroughly examined the complaint as well as the reply of the petitioner and were satisfied that an enquiry had to be conducted. He contends that the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue to work in the same office as that may hamper the enquiry. He contends that the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance during the period of the enquiry and he would be provided all reasonable opportunity to establish his innocence. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that there is no need to interfere with the impugned order of suspension of the petitioner. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17310 WP No. 30452 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30373 of 2024 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 7. The petition is filed on the premise that the videographs furnished by the complainant along with the complaint were all fabricated. It is also contended that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct and that the respondents without applying their mind and without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner had proceeded to place the petitioner under suspension in terms of the impugned order. Ex facie, these contentions are defences available to the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer and cannot be urged in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order. It is now well settled that suspension is not a punishment and does not affect the service conditions of the petitioner in any manner. In view of the grave allegations made against the petitioner that he had demanded and accepted illegal gratification for release of bills, coupled with certain videographs, the respondents cannot be held to have - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17310 WP No. 30452 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30373 of 2024 not applied their mind before suspending the petitioner from service. Therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference with the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 suspending the petitioner from service. 8. One of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner was suspended from service on 09.10.2024, till date no steps are taken to commence the departmental enquiry. In this regard, he relies upon Rule 10(5)(b) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 to contend that if the enquiry is not concluded within six months, the suspension should automatically stand revoked. This contention also does not appeal to the mind of this Court since soon after the petitioner was suspended from service by the impugned order passed by respondent No.3, he had approached this Court by filing this petition challenging the said order and this Court vide order dated 19.11.2024, had granted stay of the said order of suspension. Though there is no stay against the enquiry, nonetheless, in the face of an interim order granted by this Court, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 were justified in not proceeding with the enquiry. Consequently, that contention is also rejected. The reliance placed by the learned - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17310 WP No. 30452 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30373 of 2024 counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.20768/2022 (decided on 23.11.2022) is therefore of no consequence. 9. When the order was dictated by the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of suspension was revoked and a posting was given to the petitioner. If the suspension of the petitioner is revoked independently rather than relying upon the interim order granted by this Court, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with law. However, if the impugned order of suspension of the petitioner is revoked based on the order of stay granted by this Court, in view of the dismissal of this petition, the respondents are at liberty to decide whether the order of suspension has to be revived or not. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed but is subject to the above observations. IN W.P. NO.30373/2024 10. The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.B.12(6).PR/17/2024-25 dated 09.10.2024 passed by respondent No.3, by which he was suspended from service. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17310 WP No. 30452 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30373 of 2024 11. The petitioner contends that while he was working as a First Division Assistant, a complaint was lodged by one Dr.C.S.Raghu alleging that the petitioner had demanded and accepted an illegal gratification for the release of bills. Following this, a show-cause notice was issued by Assistant Commissioner (Administration) to the petitioner on 27.08.2024. The petitioner submitted his explanation and denied the allegations made in the complaint. He also informed the Assistant Commissioner (Administration) that he was not entrusted with the work of scrutinizing or recommending the payment of bills in Dasarahalli Zone. He claimed that the bills for solid waste management is submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer and payment is made in the office of respondent No.4. He claimed that none of the contractors had lodged any complaint. He contended that the complainant was not concerned with the bills but was a third party. He claimed that when the complainant failed to extract money from him, he fabricated videos and forwarded them to his official superiors and thereby tarnished his image. The petitioner contends that ignoring the reply submitted by the petitioner, he was placed under suspension by the impugned order dated - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17310 WP No. 30452 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30373 of 2024 09.10.2024. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.10.2024 stating that the explanation submitted by him to the show cause notice was not considered and therefore requested the same be considered and the suspension order be revoked. Since the same is not considered, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of suspension and has sought for a direction to reinstate him into service. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Rule 10(3) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (henceforth referred to as 'the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957' for short), an authority placing a government servant under suspension must first consider whether there is prima facie evidence to support the charges and if it is satisfied that prima facie evidence exists, then only a government servant may be placed under suspension. He contends that the complainant was a third party to the contract and was not concerned with any works or bills that were allegedly pending payment. He contended that the complainant was a busy body and was in the habit of lodging false and frivolous complaints against the officials with an intent to blackmail them and to extract money from them. He therefore - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17310 WP No. 30452 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30373 of 2024 contends that the respondents must have been mindful of the reply submitted by the petitioner before passing the impugned order. He submits that a perusal of the impugned order does not show any application of mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner and therefore prayed that the impugned order be set at naught. 13. The learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent No.1 submits that the reply of the petitioner was indeed considered by the respondent No.2 and it was found that the allegations against the petitioner were prima facie true and warranted an enquiry. He contends that the impugned order is therefore just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 14. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 reiterated the submissions made in W.P No.30452/2024. 15. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17310 WP No. 30452 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30373 of 2024 16. The petition is filed on the premise that the videographs furnished by the complainant along with the complaint are all fabricated. It is also contended that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct but yet, the respondents without applying their mind and without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner had proceeded to place the petitioner under suspension in terms of the impugned order. Ex facie, these contentions are in the nature of defences to be raised before the Enquiry Officer and not in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order. It is now well settled that suspension is neither a punishment nor it affects the service conditions of the petitioner in any manner. In view of the grave allegations made against the petitioner that he had demanded and accepted illegal gratification for release of bills which were coupled with certain videographs, the respondents cannot be held to have not applied their mind before suspending the petitioner from service. Therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference with the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17310 WP No. 30452 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30373 of 2024 impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 suspending the petitioner from service. 17. One of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner was suspended from service on 09.10.2024, till date no steps are taken to commence the departmental enquiry. In this regard, he relies upon Rule 10(5)(b) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 to contend that if the enquiry is not concluded within six months, the suspension of the petitioner should automatically stand revoked. This contention also does not appeal to the mind of this Court since soon after the petitioner was suspended from service by the impugned order passed by respondent No.3, he had approached this Court by filing this petition challenging the said order and this Court vide order dated 19.11.2024, had granted stay of the said order of suspension. Though there is no stay against the enquiry, nonetheless, in the face of an interim order granted by this Court, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 were justified in not proceeding with the enquiry. Consequently, that contention is also rejected. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:17310 WP No. 30452 of 2024 C/W WP No. 30373 of 2024 No.20768/2022 (decided on 23.11.2022) is therefore of no consequence. 18. When the order was dictated by the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of suspension was revoked and a posting was given to the petitioner. If the suspension of the petitioner is revoked independently rather than relying upon the interim order granted by this Court, the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with law. However, if the impugned order of suspension of the petitioner is revoked based on the order of stay granted by this Court, in view of the dismissal of this petition, the respondents are at liberty to decide whether the order of suspension has to be revived or not. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed but is subject to the above observations. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN-para Nos.1 to 4, 10 to 13 SMA- para Nos.5 to 9, 14 to 18/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13