- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2584 WP No. 35910 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.35910 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: 1. SIDDALINGAIAH MATAPATHI S/O LATE BASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A ‘A’ BLOCK, G-3, KSRTC QUARTERS, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522. 2. SHIVAMURTHY S/O CHITHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A GUDDADA GOLLARA HATTI, KODIHALLI POST, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 511. 3. E. PRAKASH S/O EARANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A ALLAPURA - 577 538 JUNJARAGUNTE POST, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 4. S. RAVIKUMAR, S/O SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, GOWRASAMUDRAKAVAL, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 529. 5. K.T. MAHASWAMY S/O THIPPESWAMY, Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2584 WP No. 35910 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, KUNABEVU VILLAGE, TURUNURU HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 517. 6. R. JAGADEESH S/O C RUDRAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A NAYAKANAHATTI, CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 536. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BANGALORE – 560 027. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY KSRTC CHITRADURGA DIVISION CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RENUKA H R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION BEARING NO.KARASA/ CHIVI/ SHISTU/ 1562/24/1351/24-25 DATED 23/12/2024 (ANNEXURE-D1), BEARING NO.KARASA/ CHIVI/ SHISTU/ 1562/24/1353/24-25 DATED 23/12/2024 (ANNEXURE-D2), BEARING NO.KARASA/ CHIVI/ 1562/24/1350/24-25 SHISTU/ DATED 23/12/2024 (ANNEXURE-D3), BEARING NO.KARASA/ CHIVI/ 1562/24/1349/24-25 SHISTU/ DATED 23/12/2024 (ANNEXURE-D4), BEARING NO.KARASA/CHIVI/ SHISTU/ 1562/24/1354/24-25 DATED 23/12/2024 (ANNEXURE-D5) AND - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2584 WP No. 35910 of 2024 BEARING NO.KARASA/ CHIVI/ SHISTU/ 1562/24/1348/24-25 DATED 23/12/2024 (ANNEXURE-D6) ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND THE IMPUGNED CHARGE SHEET BEARING NO.KARASA/ CHIVI/ SHISHA/ 1562/24/1359/24-25 DATED 23/12/2024 (ANNEXURE-E1), BEARING NO.KARASA/ CHIVI/ SHISHA/ 1562/24/1361/24-25 DATED 23/12/2024 (ANNEXURE-E2), BEARING NO.KARASA/ CHIVI/ SHISHA/ 1562/24/1358/24-25 DATED 23/12/2024 (ANNEXURE-E3), BEARING NO.KARASA/ CHIVI/ SHISHA/ 1562/24/1357/24-25 DATED 23/12/2024 (ANNEXURE-E4), BEARING NO. KARASA/CHIVI/ SHISHA/ 1562/24/1362/24- 25 DATED 23/12/2024 (ANNEXURE-E5) AND BEARING NO.KARASA/ CHIVI/ SHISHA/ 1562/24/1356/24-25 DATED 23/12/2024 (ANNEXURE-E6) ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petition is filed challenging the order of suspension dated 23.12.2024 as well as the charge sheet dated 23.12.2024 filed against the petitioners. In the charge sheet, case of corruption is alleged against the petitioners. It is alleged that the petitioners that have - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2584 WP No. 35910 of 2024 indulged in corrupt practices in collusion with the private bus operators and thereby they have caused loss to the respondent/Corporation. This Court has granted interim stay on 31.12.2024 staying the operation of the suspension order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the order of suspension was communicated on 07.01.2025 and on 10.01.2025, the matter was listed before this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Corporation would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable for two reasons: (a) The order of suspension is an appealable; (b) The prayer to quash the charge sheet is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the investigation is complete and there - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2584 WP No. 35910 of 2024 is no justification for continuing with the order of suspension. It is also his further submission that despite order of suspension being communicated to the respondents, the respondents have not allowed the petitioners to work. 5. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute that the order of suspension is an appealable order. The exceptional case for entertaining the writ petition despite alternative remedy is not made out. However, the learned counsel further submits that despite communication on the interim order, the respondents/Corporation has not allowed the petitioners to work and thereby they have violated the order of this Court and for the same reason, the order of suspension has to be revoked. 7. No doubt it is true that the order came to be passed on 31.12.2024, however same was communicated - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2584 WP No. 35910 of 2024 to the respondents/Corporation on 07.01.2025. On 10.01.2025, the case was listed for hearing. On that day, matter did not reach and as such matter was adjourned. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that it cannot be said that the respondents/Corporation deliberately/willfully refused to implement the order. 8. Had the order been communicated immediately after the order was passed. Inaction to reinstate could have met with consequences. The inaction on the part of the respondents/Corporation not to allow the petitioners to work cannot be said to be a willful or deliberate act, which calls for revocation of the suspension order. 9. As far as second prayer to quash the charge sheet is concerned, it is noticed that the charge sheet is based on some investigation. Though the petitioners would contend that the contents in the charge sheet are incorrect, it is a matter of trial and petitioners have to establish their defence in the trial. The judgment of the Apex Court in KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA’s case - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2584 WP No. 35910 of 2024 supra comes to the aid of the respondents/Corporation. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. Nevertheless, the petitioners are reserved liberty to approach the Appellate Authority challenging the order of suspension. If the same is filed, it shall be considered as expeditiously as possible without being influenced by any of the observations made in the petition. It is further made clear that this Court has not endorsed the correctness of the order of suspension while disposing of the writ petition. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18