- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17056 WP No. 35207 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. 35207 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: DR. SYED SAMEER S/O LATE SYED MUNEER S.K., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PROJECT ENGINEER, KARNATAKA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE CAMPUS BENGALURU-560012 R/AT D NO. 1040, II FLOOR, H. NO.A3, NEW NO.9, C MAIN ROAD, YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU-560022 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, IISC CAMPUS, BANGALORE-560012 2. THE KARNATAKA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, INDIAN INSTITUTE SCIENCE CAMPUS, BENGALURU-560012 [REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT, 1960] …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17056 WP No. 35207 of 2024 (BY SRI. SYED KASIF ALI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) 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. KSCST NO. 2.1/SS/437 DATED 03.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (VIDE ANNEXURE-B) AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ETC. 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.KSCST No.2.1/SS/437, dated 03.12.2004, issued by the respondent No.2 suspending him from service. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him into the service. 2. The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Project Engineer in the respondent No.2 on 18.01.2021. He contends that one of his associates on the project, working under him escalated his complaint that his salary was withheld. He approached the Executive Secretary of the respondent No.2 who informed him to contact the Accounts Officer. The - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17056 WP No. 35207 of 2024 petitioner contends that the said issue was escalated before the Accounts Officer and after the petitioner came to know that Mrs.Chaitra working as a Second Division Assistant had withheld the salary, he sent a WhatsApp message requesting her to release the withheld salary. Since there was no response, he approached her and personally requested her to release the withheld salary. However, she misbehaved and spoke arrogantly, which compelled the petitioner to raise his voice. Based on the said incident, a complaint was lodged by Mrs.Chaitra with the respondent No.2, based upon which, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 03.12.2024. The petitioner thereafter submitted an explanation to the respondent No.1 on 06.12.2024 and requested him to revoke the order of suspension as he did not commit any misconduct as alleged, which was of no avail. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the order of suspension. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even as per the complaint lodged by Mrs.Chaitra, the incident occurred in relation to an issue concerning the non-release of salary to Mr.VishwaPrasanna. He contends that Mrs.Chaitra, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17056 WP No. 35207 of 2024 who was a Second Division Assistant, misbehaved with the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner had to raise his voice and that is construed to be an affront and a complaint was lodged against him. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to question the Second Division Assistant as to why the salary of the Project Assistant was not released and hence, he contends that there was no misconduct that warranted being enquired into and hence, the order of suspension is not justified. He also contends that there is no prima facie evidence to support the allegations against the petitioner that warrants his suspension from service. He therefore prays that the impugned order of suspension be set at naught. 4. The petition is opposed by the respondents, who have filed statement of objections inter alia contending that under Regulation 20.06 of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules (henceforth referred to as ‘C and R Rules’ for short), the appointing authority has the power to place an employee under suspension pending enquiry provided there is a prima facie case against him for imposing any of the penalties mentioned in Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (henceforth referred to as ‘KCS (CCA) Rules’ for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17056 WP No. 35207 of 2024 short). It is contended that during the period of suspension, the petitioner would be paid subsistence allowance as per Rule 98 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (henceforth referred to as ‘KCS Rules’), subject to compliance of conditions mentioned therein. It is also submitted that the petitioner was involved in several incidents in the past where he was accused of misbehavior, physical assault and verbal abuse of his colleagues at the workplace, which were grave in nature. It is contended that the petitioner had also pressurized some of the complainants to withdraw their complaint and stall the enquiry proceedings. The competent authority therefore felt it appropriate to place the petitioner under suspension after a complaint was lodged against him on 02.12.2024. It is therefore contended that there is no error in the competent authority exercising its jurisdiction to suspend the services of the petitioner. Besides this, it is contended that an order of suspension, unless malafide and without there being even prima facie evidence on record connecting an employee with misconduct, this Court should not ordinarily interfere with it. In support of its contention that the petitioner had indulged in alleged misbehavior in the past, it has placed on record several - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17056 WP No. 35207 of 2024 complaints, the last of which is the one filed by Mr.Gangadharappa on 22.11.2023. The respondents have also placed on record a letter dated 22.11.2023 submitted by the petitioner tendering an unconditional apology and expressing regret for his actions and assuring that he would not repeat such conduct in future. It is also contended that in view of the unconditional apology tendered by the petitioner, a minor punishment of censure was passed not only on the petitioner but also on Mr.Gangadharappa under the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957. It is also contended that despite multiple warnings and opportunities provided to the petitioner to mend his behavior, he again interfered in the recruitment process at the respondent institute even though he had no authority to do so as it had to be done by the recruitment committee headed by the secretary of the council. In that regard, the petitioner sent an e-mail dated 12.08.2024 directly to the secretary wherein he showed disrespect to the members of the recruitment committee. It is alleged that the language and tone of the e- mail displayed total disrespect for his official superiors in the organization. It is also alleged that the petitioner had indulged in similar alleged misbehavior with one Mrs.Lavanya, who was - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17056 WP No. 35207 of 2024 also a Second Division Assistant and that she had also lodged a complaint on 05.11.2024, which was escalated before the competent authority to take action. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner has to be reined in and suitable action has to be initiated against the petitioner for creating a vitiated atmosphere in the workplace. 5. A rejoinder is filed to the statement of objections, inter alia contending that the respondents have failed to demonstrate any prima facie case of misconduct warranting suspension on the allegations of misbehavior, verbal abuse and misconduct but is devised to victimize the petitioner. The petitioner has tried to explain the circumstances under which earlier complaints were lodged against him by Mr.Keshava.K.N., Mrs.Ramyashree, Mr.Gangadharappa etc., It is contended that the respondents are trying to link past alleged misconduct to victimize the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner was at the receiving end of certain allegations made by one Mr.Hemanth Kumar, who was the acting Executive Secretary in-charge and who had made caustic remarks about his religion and that no action was initiated against Mr.Hemanth Kumar. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17056 WP No. 35207 of 2024 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, suspension is an inevitable incidence of service. It is neither a punishment nor does it affect the service of the petitioner unless he is held guilty of the charges leveled against him. The respondents had taken note of a complaint lodged by a woman worker in the organization and the respondents were satisfied that the conduct of the petitioner was a misconduct which warranted disciplinary action. A perusal of the complaint lodged by Mrs.Chaitra indicates on the face of it that the petitioner had used intemperate language against her. Therefore, it is not as if there was no material for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner. Since the petitioner is the Project Engineer, his continuous presence in the post may affect the proposed enquiry against him. Therefore, in order to ensure that the enquiry is held in a free and fair manner, he had to be moved out of the mischief zone. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17056 WP No. 35207 of 2024 8. Under the circumstances, there was justification in the respondents placing the petitioner under suspension. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the said order. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. It is made clear that the petitioner shall cooperate in the conduct of the enquiry. Subject to the above, the respondents are directed to conduct and conclude the enquiry within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15