- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 31797 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 31922 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) WRIT PETITION NO. 32022 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) WRIT PETITION NO. 32047 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) IN WP No. 31797/2025 BETWEEN: SMT. PADMAVATHI B. S. W/O D. NAGESH RAO AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS FOOD INSPECTOR AND ADDITION CHARGE OF CASE WORKER FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS BENGALURU WEST RANGE, BENGALURU R/AT #133, 10TH E CROSS, SANJEEVINI NAGARA, KALYANA NAGRA, MOODALAPALYA BENGALURU - 560 072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHUPATHI M J., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS NO.8, CUNNIGHAM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2025 PASSED IN APP.No.2512/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE ANNEXURE- A AND ALLOW THE APP.No.2512/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION BEARING No.FCSCA- ADMN0OO/2/2025 DATED 06.06.2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A12 AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE APPLICANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ii) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS APPLICATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER IN WP NO.31922/2025 BETWEEN: SRI. GIRISHA S S/O SOMAPPA. M AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS FOOD INSPECTOR AND ADDITION CHARGE OF CASE WORKER AT FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, EAST RANGE, BENGALURU - 560 042 R/AT NO.20, SRIHARI NILAYA, CQAL LAYOUT, ATTUR YALAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHUPATHI M J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER NO.8, CUNNIGHAM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., LEARNED ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14/10/2025 PASSED IN A.NO.2496/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE A.NO.2496/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION BEARING NO.FCSCA-ADMN0OO/2/2025 DATED 06/06/2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A9 AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE APPLICANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ii) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS APPLICATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN WP NO.32022/2025 BETWEEN: S. NAGARAJA S/O SAMPPAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS FOOD INSPECTOR AND ADDITION CHARGE OF CASE WORKER FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS BENGALURU NORTH RANGE, BENGALURU R/AT #49, 6TH MAIN, JNANAJOTHI NAGARA JNANABHARATHI, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER BENGALURU - 560 056 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHUPATHI M J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS NO.8, CUNNIGHAM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2025 PASSED IN A.No.2505/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE A.No.2505/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION BEARING No. FCSCA-ADMN0OO/2/2025 DATED 6.6.2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A7 AND - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER CONSEQUENTLY GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE APPLICANT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ii) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS APPLICATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN WP NO.32047/2025 BETWEEN: SRI. RAJAIAH S/O PUTTAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS FOOD INSPECTOR AND ADDITION CHARGE OF CASE WORKER FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS BENGALURU SOUTH RANGE, BENGALURU R/AT NO.107, 4TH MAIN KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHUPATHI M J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE - 560 001 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS NO.8, CUNNIGHAM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2025 PASSED IN A.No.2507/2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE A.No.2507/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION BEARING No.FCSCA-ADMN0OO/2/2025 DATED 06.06.2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A8 AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE APPLICANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ii) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS APPLICATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioners are working as Food Inspectors with the second respondent with the additional charge of a caseworker with the office of the Joint Director. The second respondent has kept the petitioners under suspension by orders that are called in question with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal'], and the corresponding applications are in Nos.2512/2025, 2496/2025, 2505/2025 and 2507/2025. The Tribunal has rejected these applications. 2. It is undisputed that the allegations against these petitioners are similar. It is alleged that they have permitted the use of unauthorized vehicles to transport the food grains from the corresponding warehouses and that they have not taken action against these Fair Price Depots [FPDs]. The Tribunal - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER has granted the interim order staying the second respondent's decision to keep the petitioners under suspension, and the petitioners have had the advantage of this order until disposal of the applications. However, the Tribunal, by the impugned order, has rejected these applications observing that the scope of judicial review in the matters of suspension is very limited and that an Officer is kept under suspension to ensure that such Officer is outside the mischief zone and that the proceedings contemplated are completed without the officer taking advantage of the continuance in the same office. 3. The petitioners contend, amongst others, that the certain Food Inspectors have been served with similar show cause notices and that those proceedings have culminated with just a warning; and the Tribunal has observed that whether the petitioners are similarly placed as those who have been administered a warning will have to be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER examined and an appropriate decision taken by the concerned. 4. Sri Narayanaswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that a decision to keep an official under suspension will be justified when it is under any of the circumstances enumerated under Rule-10 of the Karnataka Civil Service [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1957 [for short, '1957 Rules'] and the only circumstance that could be held against the petitioners is a prima facie case of gross dereliction of duty but in the present circumstances, there cannot be any allegations of gross dereliction. In elaboration, Sri Narayanaswamy canvasses thus. 4.1 The petitioners, in response to the show cause notices issued, have categorically stated that unauthorized vehicles have not been used; that the Manager of the concerned warehouses has made an inadvertent error in mentioning the registration numbers of the authorized vehicles and that the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER petitioners, on receipt of complaints against the FPDs within their area, have visited those FPDs and filed Reports which are acted upon by the superiors to suspend the authorization of those FPDs. 4.2 The petitioners were given the additional charge of a caseworker to oversee the work associated with the warehouses and presently they have no jurisdiction over the same warehouses and though they oversee the activities of the FPDs in the same area, it cannot be said that they would be within the mischief zone because the allegations against the petitioners are based on documents and there is nothing otherwise. 5. Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, supports the Tribunal’s impugned order based on the reasons assigned and supports the decision to keep the petitioners under suspension emphasizing that the cause for such decision is dereliction in discharge of duties and that - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER this is prima facie seen by the second respondent because the activities of the FPDs were not monitored to ensure that there are no complaints. 6. The question for consideration in the peculiar circumstances of the case and the rival submissions is: Whether the Tribunal has overlooked material circumstances in rejecting the petitioners' application as against the second respondent's decision to keep them under suspension, and if the Tribunal has overlooked material circumstances, should this Court interfere? 7. At the outset, this Court must observe that the petitioners' case that those who were issued with similar show cause notices have only been issued with a warning remains undisputed. This would be a very material circumstance as would be the nature of the allegations and the petitioners' response thereto. The petitioners are categorical that - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER they have not permitted the use of unauthorized vehicles, but in the records, because of inadvertence by the Manager of the concerned warehouses, the vehicle numbers have been wrongly mentioned. If this is the next set of circumstances, and the other reason is that they have, undisputedly, acted upon the information about certain wrongdoing by the concerned FPDs resulting in their Report and action thereupon to suspend the authorization of those FPDs. 8. This Court concludes that, in the circumstances discussed and on a prima facie scale, a case for gross dereliction of duty to justify a decision to keep them under suspension is not made out and that the Tribunal has overlooked the material circumstances. It will be unfair and unjust to permit the continuance of the petitioners under suspension despite this opinion. The question for consideration is accordingly answered to interfere not just with the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER Tribunal's order but also with the second respondent's decision to keep the petitioners under suspension. At this stage, Sri Vikas Rojipura submits that this Court must observe that this disposal cannot prevent the concerned authorities from continuing the proceedings under the show cause notice or from moving the petitioners from the current position. Sri Narayanaswamy is also heard in the light of these submissions. In the circumstances, this Court finds considerable force in the submission as regards liberty to the afore. As such, the following: ORDER [a] The petitions are allowed. [b] The Tribunal's common order dated 14.10.2025 in Application Nos.2512/2025, 2496/2025, 2505/2025 and 2507/2025 are quashed. [c] The second respondent's order of suspension dated 06.06.2025 [Annexures-A12, A9, A7 and - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42540-DB WP No. 31797 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31922 of 2025 WP No. 32022 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER A8 in the corresponding writ petitions] are quashed. [d] The respondents will be at liberty to take further action in accordance with law. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M. NADAF) JUDGE AN/-